ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Airports

Mike Freer: What recent representations he has received on the competitiveness of UK airports.

Philip Hammond: I regularly receive representations from the aviation industry and other stakeholders on a range of issues relating to UK airports.

Mike Freer: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He may be aware that some have suggested a congestion levy on south-east airports to fund a discount on air passenger duty in regional airports. What assessment has he made of the competitiveness of south-east airports in view of this ludicrous suggestion?

Philip Hammond: I think my hon. Friend’s question betrays the fact that he has already made his own assessment. I believe that this suggestion was made in a response by regional airports to a consultation on APD conducted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. No doubt the Chancellor will respond to those suggestions in due course.

Graham Stringer: I think it is an excellent suggestion. There is huge capacity in the regional airports and since there has been complete freedom to fly anywhere in Europe, it has been difficult for Governments to use that capacity. Does the Secretary of State have any ideas how that extra capacity in regional airports can be used to the benefit of the UK economy?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is significant capacity in our regional airport runways. We have to recognise that the demand for aviation growth in the UK is not just an aggregate demand—it has a certain geographical distribution—but I am keen that the regional airports play a role in meeting that demand. I believe that the high-speed rail project will help them to do so.

John Leech: As part of the review, will the Secretary of State discuss with the Treasury the viability of having an APD holiday for new long-haul routes from regional airports to improve their competitiveness with south-east airports and airports on the continent?

Philip Hammond: As I said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has conducted a consultation on the future of APD and he has made it clear that any changes to the system would have to be broadly revenue-neutral. I do not know whether my hon. Friend submitted his suggestion during the course of the consultation, but if not, I am sure that the Chancellor would be prepared to take it as a late entry.

Nigel Dodds: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the competitiveness of Belfast airports is gravely impinged by the fact that APD is levied at £120 for a return on business-class long-haul flights from Belfast, while 90 miles down the road in Dublin, it is €3 going down to zero. Clearly, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, there is a strong case for looking at the issue of APD.

Philip Hammond: Once again, I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will have submitted his views to the Chancellor in the consultation to which I just referred.

Maria Eagle: Britain’s business community finds it incredible that the Government have no intention of bringing forward a proper strategy for aviation and UK airports for the next two years. Opposition Members believe that any expansion in aviation must be sustainable, but is it not nonsense for the Government to rule out any expansion in the south-east, regardless of whether or not it can be demonstrated to be sustainable. Is not the chief executive of London First right when she warns that this failure is
	“damaging our economy and enhancing that of our EU rivals”?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady is right that we have a big challenge in relation to aviation growth in the south-east. What I did not hear her do was repeat Labour’s policy to build a third runway at Heathrow airport. Perhaps at some stage she could tell the House whether that remains Labour’s policy. The coalition Government cancelled the third runway at Heathrow because of the unacceptable environmental burden that it imposed, but we are committed to developing a new and sustainable aviation strategy that will allow the growth of aviation in the UK—but only when it meets its environmental obligations.

Motorway Speed Limits

Stephen Mosley: What recent representations he has received on varying national motorway speed limits.

Michael Penning: My ministerial colleagues and I have received a variety of representations, including via the red tape challenge to the highways regulations, on the subject of varying the motorway speed limit. The issue raises interesting aspects of our current behaviour, and we will continue to look at it.

Stephen Mosley: The maximum motorway speed limit in several European countries, including France, Italy and Germany, is currently greater than 80 mph. In order to help deliver the economic benefit of reduced journey time, will my hon. Friend consider increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 mph?

Michael Penning: The existing limit has been in place since the ’60s. We will weigh up safety and environmental aspects against enforcement—although we all know that 70 mph is not being enforced—and how increasing the speed limit to 80 mph would help the country to grow in infrastructure. We will look at the balance in those areas.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In assessing the impact on safety of increasing motorway speed limits, does the Minister agree that another potential consequence will be our ability to meet our carbon dioxide emission targets? Has he received any representations from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who, as we know, is something of an expert on these matters?

Michael Penning: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who had my job before me, but he should have listened to the answer I gave a few moments ago before reading out his prepared question. We will balance the environmental aspects against the safety aspects, and also take into account the legislative process and whether or not we can get Britain moving better.

Julian Huppert: May I press the Minister a little further? What analysis has he done of the extra fuel usage and CO2 emissions that would result from increasing the speed limit from 70 to 80?

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman should also have listened to what I said. I did not say that we had conducted the consultation; I said we would balance various aspects during the consultation, and I am sure he would like to take part in that consultation and in our discussion about what is the right balance.

Urban Traffic

John Spellar: What steps he is taking to improve the flow of traffic in urban areas.

Norman Baker: We are providing local authorities with the right tools and the freedom to use them effectively. Our £560 million local sustainable transport fund will contribute to local schemes that support growth and reduce carbon.

John Spellar: Last week, in answer to a written question that I tabled on street works, the Minister stated that an independent report had found that legislation was “fit for purpose” but local authority practice needed to improve. He can certainly say that again! He only has to step outside this building to see the chaos caused by nearby street works that continue for week after week with no work actually being done, and that pattern is repeated across London and the rest of urban Britain. What is he going to do to create a sense of urgency about freeing up the roads—and, as a start, will he get Boris to focus on his day job and start sorting out London’s roads?

Norman Baker: All of us have considerable sympathy for those who encounter street works, which are a nuisance to motorists and pedestrians alike, and which
	cause congestion and adversely affect business. We are keen to take steps to improve matters, including by developing regulations to allow targeted lane rental schemes, cutting red tape from the private scheme approval process, and considering utility works overrun charges.

Swindon to Kemble Railway

Neil Carmichael: When he expects the Swindon to Kemble railway redoubling project to commence.

Theresa Villiers: Network Rail has commenced design work, and I expect implementation to start in 2012-13, with completion by 2014-15 ahead of electrification works on the Great Western main line in 2016-17.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that this is an example of intelligent investment to promote economic growth? It will be great news for Gloucestershire, and stands in complete contrast to the failure of the last Labour Government to provide any support of this kind to the railway system.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He and many of his colleagues in the House have fought a hard campaign for redoubling, and I am delighted that the coalition can deliver that. In addition, the introduction of intercity express programme trains should lead to reductions in journey times and to frequent services, which will benefit the economy in his constituency and surrounding areas.

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend will know that local businesses, local MPs—including me—and the local authority in Swindon would like to see the development of a branch station on the Kemble line at Sparcells. What advice and encouragement can she give to me and to local agencies on the development of that station?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend has also fought a hard campaign to improve rail services in his area. My advice in respect of that project would be to continue to engage closely with the local authority, which has the leading role in taking forward and funding such projects, and to engage closely with Network Rail and the train operator to see what might be logistically feasible to consider in the future.

Humber Bridge

Nicholas Dakin: What progress has been made on the review of toll charges on the Humber bridge.

Norman Baker: The second phase of the Humber bridge review was launched on 14 June, and we are now in the process of meeting stakeholders to gather views and ideas. As part of that process, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I intend to meet interested Members, including the hon. Gentleman.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for his reply. Humber bridge tolls are essentially a tax on local people and local businesses. Is it right that at this time, with this review still going on, there should be an 11% hike in those taxes?

Norman Baker: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, of course, but the fact of the matter is that the Humber Bridge Board applied for an increase. I decided unilaterally to have a public inquiry, where people’s representations could be heard. The inspector came back with a clear recommendation in support of the board’s application for an increase, and there is no reason for Ministers to take a contrary view. What I would say, however, is that there has been no increase in the toll since 2006.

Martin Vickers: Notwithstanding the decision of the Humber Bridge Board this week to implement the recommended increase from 1 October—just six or seven weeks before we anticipate the review being completed—does the Minister agree that, irrespective of the outcome regarding the tolls, the governance of the bridge clearly needs revising so that residents and the local community have a clear spokesman? At the moment, councillors are almost forbidden from taking part.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are immensely obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Norman Baker: I sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend is making. The governors’ arrangements for the bridge are part of the review that we are undertaking. We inherited an unsustainable position from the previous Government in relation to the bridge. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I are very concerned about this and we are determined to make progress if we can on this matter and others.

Diana Johnson: In the general election, the Liberal Democrats ran a “Ditch the Humber Bridge Debt” campaign. In the light of the Minister’s decision to endorse the 11% increase, should he not think again? Is this not another example of the Lib Dems’ promises in the manifesto being broken now they are in government?

Norman Baker: I think that what the hon. Lady wanted to say was that we have decided, since the election, to offer a reduced interest rate on the Humber Bridge Board’s debt, which will save the board £48 million in interest payments over the next five years.

High Speed 2

Helen Grant: What progress his Department has made on its consultation on High Speed 2.

Philip Hammond: I launched the national consultation on high speed rail on 28 February. It will close at midnight on 29 July and decisions will follow by December. The Government consider that a high-speed rail network between London and Birmingham and onward to Manchester and Leeds would drive economic growth and prosperity as well as providing vital new capacity on the west coast corridor.

Helen Grant: Does the Secretary of State also agree that HS2 could bridge the wealth divide that exists between the north and the south?

Philip Hammond: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point very clearly. I believe that it is not possible for Britain to maintain its prosperity in the 21st century in an increasingly competitive global economy unless we can close the growth gap between north and south. Governments for the past 50 or 60 years have wrestled with this challenge and we have not succeeded yet. This approach of investing in strategic infrastructure is the last best chance to achieve that.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the Secretary of State share my view that developing the eastern leg of the “Y”, which will link the great core cities of Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, has a very strong business case and should be prioritised?

Philip Hammond: I agree that it has a very strong business case and it will be part of the “Y” network, but the logic of building this project is that we have to do the complex engineering challenge of getting out of London through tunnels—the difficult bit of the project—first. In engineering terms, once we are out of the tunnels, it is pretty much plain sailing to complete the remainder of the construction.

Adrian Sanders: Will the Minister please give thought to the people of the west country who have some of the slowest rail links with London and some of the most expensive fares? Rather than extra, speedy lines north, we would like some speedy and efficient lines south-west.

Philip Hammond: I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that electrification of the Great Western main line and the introduction of the IEP rolling stock will improve services in terms of speed, reliability, comfort and capacity on services between London and the west country.

Crossrail

Emily Thornberry: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that the Crossrail programme provides adequate toilet facilities at stations and on its rolling stock.

Theresa Villiers: Provision of adequate and accessible facilities is an important consideration for many passengers. The majority of Crossrail stations will have toilet facilities. Since this will be a high frequency metro service, with most passengers travelling relatively short distances, we have no current plans to provide toilets on Crossrail trains.

Emily Thornberry: Crossrail is currently building a huge new station at Farringdon, which we welcome. However, will the Minister join me in urging Crossrail to build some toilets at Farringdon station? As Councillor Charalambous so eloquently put it:
	“They are causing years of inconvenience to local residents and businesses—this is the least they can do. At the end of the day,”
	men
	“piss against everything around here—inevitably they’ll be pissing in their stations and they won’t like it.”

Theresa Villiers: I am sure the hon. Lady will be aware that the redevelopment of Farringdon station involves Crossrail and Thameslink. It is going to be an exceptionally busy and important station after that and there will be toilet facilities. It is intended that those facilities will be provided in the London underground aspect as part of the Thameslink upgrade, so Crossrail passengers are likely to have access to facilities nearby as part of the London underground upgrade.

Nigel Mills: When it comes to providing toilets, and indeed the whole rolling stock, will the Minister assure me that there will be a level playing field so that there is a fair chance that rolling stock can be constructed in Derby in the UK, rather than in Germany as in the announcement last week?

Theresa Villiers: It is vitally important that all procurement processes are entirely fair to suppliers, including Bombardier.

National Air Traffic Services

Kevin Brennan: What proportion of its stake in NATS Ltd the Government plan to sell; and if he will make a statement.

Philip Hammond: I recently launched a call for evidence on whether the Government need to retain a shareholding in NATS in order to meet our aviation policy objectives. The results will inform decisions on whether to sell all, part or none of the Government’s shareholding in the company. I expect to update the House once we have considered the responses to the call for evidence.

Kevin Brennan: Do I take it from that reply that the Secretary of State is considering a complete sell-off of the Government’s interest in NATS? Will he also tell us what consultations he is having with the staff and the airline group about their views on the matter?

Philip Hammond: The call for evidence has gone to stakeholders in and around the company and the air traffic sector. We asked what the implications would be of selling all, part or none of our shareholding. We are open-minded and conscious of the fact that there could be strategic implications, and we want to understand from the people who work in the industry what those strategic implications might be before making any decision.

First Great Western

Chris Evans: What recent discussions he has had with FirstGroup on the future of the First Great Western rail franchise; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Baker: Department for Transport Ministers and officials meet franchised train operators and their owners regularly. These discussions have included the decision which has been announced by First Great Western to exit the franchise in March 2013.

Chris Evans: On the electrification of the Great Western line, what action is being taken to ensure that the new franchisee works with Network Rail so that there is minimum customer disruption during that period?

Norman Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that element is an important part of the forward programme that is occurring.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: When the First Great Western franchise is retendered, would the Minister consider allowing a provision to allow sufficient capital investment to improve the car parking at Kemble, which is already at capacity?

Norman Baker: We are reviewing the full franchise process, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. As part of the franchise consideration, we are looking at longer franchises that may include that sort of issue in due course.

Louise Ellman: Given the circumstances in which FirstGroup decided to relinquish the contract, how will the Minister address new franchises so that both the interests of the taxpayer and the welfare of passengers are heeded?

Norman Baker: That is an important and quite correct question, because the present franchise held by First Great Western was undoubtedly skewed towards the operator and away from the fare payer and the taxpayer. It is not a franchise that, frankly, the Government would want replicated. The whole process of franchise renewal is designed to eliminate that sort of unfair franchise.

Duncan Hames: I certainly endorse the Minister’s most recent remarks. Residents in Melksham in my constituency will want to do a lot better from the new franchise than they did from the last one. Will he tell us when the public will have an opportunity to contribute to a consultation on the draft specification for the new Great Western franchise?

Norman Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that that matter has been fully taken on board. There will be a full consultation, including with residents of his constituency.

Gavin Shuker: FirstGroup also manages First Capital Connect, the franchisee operating the Thameslink route. As that franchisee has consistently low scores on customer performance, will the Minister give an assurance that the franchise will not automatically be extended in 2015 but that we will have an opportunity to put it out to tender once again?

Norman Baker: No decision has been made on that matter, although clearly there are franchise terms to be adhered to by the franchise holder, and requirements in law that must be adhered to by them and the Department. Performance is an important matter for the railway and it is something I take seriously, as does my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed by passengers on the hon. Gentleman’s line and I shall be meeting railway operatives later today to discuss performance on the railway, including on his line.

Accessible Travel Information

Jim Cunningham: If he will bring forward proposals to ensure the provision of accessible public travel information for blind and partially sighted people.

Norman Baker: The Department is committed to improving accessible transport information that is available to enable people to plan their full journey. For example, the development of a journey planner for spectators going to the Olympics has provided an important new opportunity to achieve high standards of accessible information.

Jim Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that answer, but has he had any discussions with the railway operators, particularly in relation to the implications of cuts in the staffing of railway stations for people with disabilities?

Norman Baker: Matters relating to individual stations are, of course, ultimately ones for the franchise holder, but we have offered financial support for new information systems at more than 170 railway stations since 2006 and audio-visual passenger systems have been mandatory for all new rail vehicles since 1998.

Mark Pawsey: I received a visit from my constituent, Lionel Broughton, on this matter with regard to buses. My local bus company, Stagecoach, has said that it will look at introducing visual and voice announcements on its fleet. Can the Minister do anything to give the industry a nudge?

Norman Baker: I am delighted to say that I wrote to the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents the main bus operators, on 23 May, to give exactly that nudge.

Rail Fares

Katy Clark: What recent assessment he has made of the effects on household budgets of changes in rail fares.

Theresa Villiers: A distributional analysis of the impact of rail fare increases was conducted during the spending review and used to inform Department for Transport and Treasury decisions on spending review outcomes.

Katy Clark: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she aware of research by Passenger Focus that shows that people who buy their tickets from ticket machines pay far more expensive fares than if they used one of the staffed ticket offices? The McNulty report calls for the closure of half of all our staffed railway offices. Will she decide to reject those proposals to ensure, among many other reasons, that people get the cheapest fares they can?

Theresa Villiers: The industry needs to do a lot better on its ticket machines and to ensure that passengers are properly informed about the ticket choices available. We will continue to challenge the industry to do that through our fares review and the White Paper on the future of the rail industry which we intend to publish in November.

Andrew Gwynne: Given the Government’s decision to increase rail fares by 3% above inflation for each of the next three years, many commuters will have to spend a fifth of their household income—more than their mortgage or rent—just
	to get to work. Incidentally, that would be equivalent to the Minister of State having to pay almost £20,000 a year. Instead of asking commuters to plug the hole caused by the transport budget being cut too far and too fast, will she think again?

Theresa Villiers: We faced the largest peacetime deficit that we have ever faced. To continue with the biggest programme of rail upgrades in modern history, we unfortunately must ask passengers to make a contribution. The blame lies fairly and squarely with the previous Government for leaving us with a deficit and letting the cost of the railways spiral out of control.

Cambridge and King’s Lynn Rail Line

Elizabeth Truss: What assessment his Department has made of the potential benefit to the economy of upgrading the railway line between Cambridge and King’s Lynn.

Theresa Villiers: Our current plans envisage that passengers on the fen line could benefit from new intercity express trains from 2018. That would offer improved passenger accommodation and a shorter journey time to London, subject to a satisfactory outcome to contractual negotiations with Agility Trains and timetabling arrangements that will be finalised with the future franchisee.

Elizabeth Truss: With the area’s economic growth and the fact that passenger numbers between Downham Market and Cambridge have increased by 150% in the past 10 years, does the Minister agree that expanding the fen line northwards should be a key consideration in Network Rail’s next phased upgrade?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend has campaigned strongly to improve services on the fen line. I pay tribute to her and the other local MPs who take this seriously. She is absolutely right that passenger numbers have been increasing. This has been a real success story. I would certainly encourage her and her constituents to engage with Network Rail, as it looks to the next railway control period to see what infrastructure improvements might be deliverable within affordability constraints.

Low-carbon Vehicles

Jo Swinson: What steps he is taking to encourage take-up of low-carbon vehicles.

Philip Hammond: The Government have made provision of over £400 million for measures to promote the uptake of ultra-low-carbon vehicle technologies. These measures include support for consumer incentives, the development of recharging infrastructure and a programme of research, development and demonstration work. Low-emission vehicles also benefit from tax advantages.

Jo Swinson: A convenient network of publicly available charging points is essential if we are to encourage the uptake of electric cars, so I welcome the £1.45 million of Government funding for Transport Scotland to build
	375 charging points across the central belt of Scotland, but I was concerned at BBC media reports last month suggesting that the UK in general is behind schedule in getting these charging points in place. Will the Secretary of State give us an update on progress on charging points?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and I agree that we need to understand the way in which the public expect to use public charging points, in order to understand how we can best roll out the electric vehicle programme. Early evidence from other countries has produced some results that might not have been intuitive before the demonstration projects. It is true that the total number of charging posts that are rolled out will be less than was originally envisaged, because in a number of cases promoters of the plugged-in places schemes have determined that multi-headed charging posts are the best way forward. That accounts for some of the discrepancy in numbers to which I think the hon. Lady is referring.

Peter Aldous: Will the Minister consider maintaining the duty differential for sustainable biofuels? This has played an important role in creating green jobs, which are now threatened by the removal of the differential in April 2012.

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend knows, the differential plays an important role in bringing forward sustainable biofuels. In particular, the re-use of used oils is an important source of sustainable fuels. However, all matters relating to duty are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider and, when the current arrangements expire in 2012, he will consider whether to renew them and on what basis.

Public Transport (2012 Olympics)

Tobias Ellwood: What recent discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on public transport provision during the London 2012 Olympics.

Philip Hammond: I have lead accountability in Government for transport preparations for the 2012 Olympic games. Ministers and departmental officials regularly meet and correspond with the Mayor of London and Transport for London officials on a variety of London transport issues, including those in relation to the 2012 Olympics. The Mayor of London also attends the regular meetings of the Cabinet Sub-Committee overseeing preparations for the Olympics, of which I am a member.

Tobias Ellwood: Not all the events are taking place in London. Bournemouth is still coming to terms with losing the bid for the beach volleyball to Horse Guards Parade. However, Weymouth is delighted to be hosting the sailing events. Will the Secretary of State outline what improvements to transport will take place for 2012 in that area?

Philip Hammond: I agree that on the face of it Bournemouth has a better beach than Horse Guards Parade, but there we are. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the transport challenges around the other venues. Plans to improve transport access to Weymouth during the Olympic games include temporary traffic management and a
	£5.7 million scheme to improve the Canford Bottom roundabout, which will include the installation of 70 additional traffic lights to control traffic flow. During this summer, the Highways Agency will be trialling the use of its traffic officers on the route between London and Weymouth as an additional means to manage traffic flows.

A63

Karl Turner: What plans he has for future improvements on the A63.

Michael Penning: The spending review announcement in October 2010 listed the A63 Castle street improvement scheme for potential construction in future spending review periods, subject to the statutory process.

Karl Turner: The Labour council has had productive talks with Associated British Ports and Siemens this week, but is it not about time the Government became enthusiastic about the massive investment in my constituency and considered bringing forward plans to improve the A63? We are desperate for that.

Michael Penning: The Government are very enthusiastic as well, and there have been discussions with colleagues in the area and the Secretary of State in past days. We have to accept the financial mess that the previous Administration left us in, but we will do everything we can. If there are huge investments going in, perhaps the investors would also like to invest in that infrastructure, as is the case in other parts of the country.

Andrew Percy: The Humber local economic partnership recently submitted a bid for an enterprise zone based around both sides of the Humber—the green port in Hull and the Able UK site on the south Humber gateway. The A63 will be key to linking that. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the enterprise zone? Will he work in a joined-up way across Government to progress the A63 development?

Michael Penning: We work across Government on all such projects. We accept that enterprise zones will bring in more investment and growth, which is what we need to get out of the financial mess that we are in. I am sure that we will meet other Ministers and work forwards, but we have to go through the statutory process first.

London Underground

Gavin Barwell: Whether he plans to bring forward proposals to prevent unplanned industrial action on London Underground.

Theresa Villiers: Existing legislation requires trade unions contemplating industrial action to ballot their membership and give due notice to the employer. The Government encourage both London Underground and the trade unions representing its employees to resolve disputes as quickly as possible through negotiation.

Gavin Barwell: Given the huge disruption that strikes on the underground cause for my constituents and for London’s economy, is it not about time that there was a no-strike agreement on this vital public service, preferably negotiated with the union, but failing that through Government legislation?

Theresa Villiers: Of course, I am well aware of the Mayor’s ambitions to get a no-strike agreement, which I think would be very positive if he could negotiate it with the unions. With regard to changing strike law, the Government are not rushing to any kind of confrontation with the unions, but Mr Crow and his colleagues at the RMT must recognise that the more irresponsibly they behave, holding London to ransom, the more they strengthen the argument of those who want a change in strike law.

Topical Questions

Kate Green: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: Since I last answered departmental questions, Sir Roy McNulty has published his report on improving value for money on our railways, which I have committed to responding to by publishing detailed proposals for the future of the railways before the end of the year. I have published a new strategic framework for road safety and announced the outcome of the competition to build carriages for the Thameslink programme. Today my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has launched a consultation on proposals to reform the air travel organiser’s licence holiday protection scheme. I have also dealt with the consequences of the Grimsvotn volcano eruption, which is a good deal easier to say than Eyjafjallajokull and, I am pleased to say, caused a good deal less disruption.

Kate Green: Trafford Park in my constituency is home to many international businesses and makes a crucial contribution to UK manufacturing and exports. Excellent rail links are essential to its success. In planning for High Speed 2, what is being done to ensure that it and the wider regional rail network are fully integrated?

Philip Hammond: I would make two points to the hon. Lady. First, High Speed 2 will release significant amounts of capacity on the west coast main line, which will be available for different types of service, including freight. Secondly, we are clear that high-speed rail is not an alternative to investment in our conventional railways. Once people arrive at the high-speed destinations they will still need to get to their local destinations across the region, so we have to reinforce the regional rail networks as part and parcel of the programme of rail investment.

Stephen Phillips: I recently had the pleasure of meeting the parish council in the village of South Kyme in my constituency, which brought to my attention the loss of the village’s only bus service. Many constituents have reported to me the loss of bus services, which are incredibly important for rural communities. What support can the Department lend to re-establish that service and ensure that those that exist remain?

Norman Baker: As my hon. and learned Friend will recognise, the provision of bus services is primarily a matter for either commercial operators or local councils through tendered services, but we are cognisant of the importance of such services in rural areas and so have provided £10 million extra for community transport initiatives, and the local sustainable transport fund of £560 million allows investment in bus services in rural areas.

Maria Eagle: This morning the Transport Committee asked the Government to withdraw their modernisation proposals for the coastguard and consult on revised plans. Its report is very clear:
	“The evidence we have received raises serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed.”
	Despite failing to do so before now, will the Secretary of State finally listen to coastguards up and down the country and abandon his dangerous and reckless plan to close more than half of Britain’s coastguard stations?

Michael Penning: We welcome the Committee’s report. If the hon. Lady looks at it carefully, she will see that it actually says that the status quo is not acceptable and that coastguard stations need to close. The process we inherited from the previous Administration had been sitting on their desks for years. We said right at the start of the process that we would listen and come up with proposals after consulting. It is a shame that they did not do the same.

Helen Grant: Will the Minister meet me to discuss performance issues on the Medway valley line, which runs through my constituency?

Theresa Villiers: I would be entirely happy to do that. It is important that all rail passengers have access to reliable services. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and I are very focused on that issue and would be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Margaret Beckett: Is the Secretary of State aware that words such as “rebalancing our economy to promote private sector jobs and skilled manufacturing” ring very hollow in Derby, where 3,000 such jobs are now at risk as a result of a decision to build Thameslink trains in Germany? I understand that the Government reviewed and reconfirmed the contract after the election, but I understand also that the Secretary of State still has the power to call in the process and to invite the bidders to re-tender. Can he confirm that he will now do so?

Philip Hammond: I understand the disappointment felt by Bombardier and, indeed, the anxiety felt by the people of Derby about that decision, but before the right hon. Lady delivers me a finger-wagging lecture perhaps I can remind her of a couple of points. Her Government designed and initiated the procurement process, and some Members may remember that they used to call it Thameslink 2000. We inherited it 16 years late and £600 million over budget, and it fell to us effectively to open the envelope. The procurement was
	carried out under the terms of the EU directive, and the Siemens bid offered the best value for money on the criteria for appraisal set out in the original competition that the previous Government launched. We have to comply with EU law, and I do not have the power that she suggests I have.
	I firmly believe that free trade and open markets are the best way for us to proceed, but I believe also in the concept of the level playing field, and there is a case for looking at the way in which some of our neighbours and competitors operate the EU procurement directive, because it seems quite astonishing that, complying with that directive as we do, they have managed to achieve very high percentage penetrations of French-built trains on the French railway and of German-built trains on the German railway.

Edward Timpson: As my right hon. Friend has just said, the previous Government tied the hands of this Government on such decisions, including the Thameslink contract, which, as he is aware, affects my constituency. What can we do to ensure that British business does not lose out as a result of this false economy of going for cheap foreign contracts that leave us picking up the domestic dole bill?

Philip Hammond: I understand the concern of people in Crewe as well, of course, but we must not fall into a trap. The Siemens bid clearly offered the best value for money, and we must not lose sight of that fact. The wider issue of how we operate the procurement directive, and of how we work with the UK supply chain in industries such as rolling stock construction, is something that we need to review, and I am in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary about how we do that.

Lisa Nandy: I recently met a group of my constituents from Hunter Lodge in Wigan, who told me that they are unable to travel together on train services throughout the country because most companies will carry only one wheelchair user at a time. Does the Minister agree that, 16 years after the landmark Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it is entirely unacceptable that that appalling situation should continue? What is he therefore doing to put pressure on train companies to ensure that the situation does not continue?

Norman Baker: I entirely sympathise with the hon. Lady’s point about disabled people having difficulty accessing some trains. There is a long-standing arrangement by which trains are expected to become compliant by 2020, and we are sticking to that and putting pressure on the train companies to accelerate it wherever possible. In addition, we are spending a good deal of money on access for all at railway stations in order to ensure that stations themselves are properly accessible to all people who want to use them.

Peter Aldous: Can the Minister provide an assurance that the granting of a short-term, two-and-a-half year contract for the Greater Anglia rail franchise will not delay planning for the reintroduction of a through service from Liverpool Street to Lowestoft?

Theresa Villiers: The issue of a short franchise will not have an impact one way or another on those decisions, so I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on that. I cannot guarantee that future franchises will necessarily reintroduce through services, so it will be very important, with him, to work with bidders for the next franchise to find out what they consider viable and commercially viable. I can assure him, however, that the Government’s commitment to delivering the Beccles loop will provide more frequent services and, I hope, a significant economic benefit to his constituents.

Heidi Alexander: Commuters in Lewisham repeatedly express to me their anger about having to pay ever increasing rail fares for ever more overcrowded train services. What discussions has the Minister had recently with the Mayor of London to impress on him that train services are as important, if not more so, than his beloved bikes?

Theresa Villiers: I can assure the hon. Lady that this Government are placing a high priority on tackling overcrowding on our railways. In more or less every spending squeeze there has ever been, the first thing that gets axed is transport upgrade projects. We have committed significant funds to the Mayor of London to upgrade London’s transport systems, and we are committing significant funds across the rest of the country to support investment in our railways to relieve overcrowding. It is a high priority for us and for the Mayor.

Gordon Henderson: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to mitigate the effects of foreign hauliers who use their advantage of being able to buy fuel more cheaply on the continent to undercut British companies?

Michael Penning: We have a commitment to bringing in lorry road user charging to level the playing field. It is important, however, that we do not penalise our own truckers with whatever scheme we bring in. We are in ongoing negotiations with the Treasury and we are committed to introducing a scheme in this Parliament.

Brian H Donohoe: The Secretary of State will no doubt have seen the reports in yesterday’s newspapers about Willie Walsh of British Airways having suggested that as a consequence of the fact that a third runway will not be built in the south-east at Heathrow, he will increase BA’s business in Madrid. Is that not rather ironic?

Philip Hammond: I am pleased to see that British Airways, along with BAA, now accepts the finality of the coalition Government’s decision that we will not allow the building of a third runway at Heathrow airport. However, that is not the end of the matter. We have to provide for aviation growth in the south-east of England, and in the UK as a whole, in order to meet the needs of a growing economy in future. That is why we have launched a scoping document and will bring forward a new sustainable aviation policy by the end of next year.

Andrew Stephenson: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what progress has been made on the reopening of the Todmorden curve, which will provide a faster rail route between East Lancashire and Manchester?

Theresa Villiers: I am very much aware of the potential benefits of that project in helping to regenerate an area that is heavily dependent on public sector jobs. For precisely those reasons, it would be an impressive candidate for funding from the regional growth fund. I understand that the local authorities are working on that at the moment. I pay tribute to the work done by those in Burnley and on Lancashire county council on getting the project moving. My officials stand ready, and are indeed working with the local authorities, to see how we might be able to help to take things forward. This is primarily a local matter, but there is the real prospect of a successful RGF bid.

Kelvin Hopkins: Eddington identified congestion as a major and growing cost to the economy. Across Europe, towns and cities have light rail systems, which alleviate congestion. When are the Government going to put real political will and resource behind developing light rail systems across Britain?

Norman Baker: I am happy to say that we have done a great deal for light rail in the time since the general election, including authorising extensions to the systems in Nottingham, Manchester and Birmingham. I have authorised a tram trial project in Sheffield and commissioned a report internally on value for money in light rail, and that report is now on my desk. We recognise the values of light rail and we are taking it forward in a real way.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Parental Leave

Charlie Elphicke: What assessment she has made of the effects on women workers of proposed reforms of parental leave.

Gavin Barwell: What assessment she has made of the effects on women workers of proposed reforms of parental leave.

Theresa May: Our proposals for a new system of parental leave will protect mothers’ rights while giving families more choice and flexibility over how they can share their work and caring responsibilities. The proposals mean that working mothers will be better able to keep in touch with their employer, and they will also aid career progression for working mothers and help to tackle pregnancy discrimination.

Charlie Elphicke: One of the key problems faced by working mothers is the gender pay gap, which is a shocking thing. Will these reforms help to reduce the gender pay gap?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I think that the reforms will reduce the gender pay gap, because the division of caring responsibilities between parents is one of the underlying issues. The current
	arrangements for parental leave reflect an expectation that the mother will stay at home and care for the children. Those arrangements urgently need reform. Although we will use a range of approaches to reduce the gender pay gap, this is an important element.

Gavin Barwell: In the light of the Prime Minister’s speech about the importance of men taking responsibility and a more active role in the upbringing of their children, is it not time for a much more flexible system, which encourages and allows them to do that?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what our flexible parental leave proposals, on which we are consulting, will do. Crucially, they will not only allow the father and mother to share parental leave, but will enable them to take time off together in the early stages following the child’s birth, if that is what they want. It will be possible for fathers to be much more involved in the very early stage of their child’s life.

Homophobia (Sport)

Daniel Poulter: What steps she is taking to reduce the incidence of homophobia in sport.

Theresa May: We are encouraging every club, team, player and fan to sign up to our new charter, “Tackling Homophobia and Transphobia in Sport”, and to work with us to put an end to homophobia and transphobia in sport. We are working with the top sports national bodies, Sport England and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games to tackle this issue. I am pleased to say that yesterday the Prime Minister hosted a reception in No. 10 to celebrate the good work that is under way to drive homophobia and transphobia out of sport.

Daniel Poulter: Given our wish to get a lot of young people involved in sport, and with the Olympics happening next year, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to break down homophobic attitudes among young people in particular and to ensure that young people can fully participate in sport? What will the Government do to facilitate that?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is important. We want sport to be welcoming for everyone. Spectators and participants should feel that there is no barrier for them, and should not feel concerned about the sort of comments they might hear. It is important that young people are taught and shown the way forward. I think that our charter will help to do that.
	We need to work on homophobia particularly in relation to football. Over time, football has not done enough to deal with this issue. Sadly, the terraces of football clubs are too often places where homophobic and transphobic comments are made. I am pleased to say that the Football Association was represented at the reception at No. 10 yesterday. Too often in the past there has been a reluctance among the football authorities to deal with this issue and frankly it is time that football got its house in order.

Chris Bryant: I wholeheartedly endorse what the Minister for Women and Equalities has said about football. It is a great sadness that there has been only one out gay footballer, and he ended up committing suicide partly because of the reaction. Has the Minister come across the charity Diversity Role Models? It plays an important role in taking gay and lesbian people from many walks of life into schools, so that young people can see that the homophobic bullying to which they might have been subjected is not the right way forward.

Theresa May: I am not aware of that organisation, but I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to send me details about it. It is important that we use every opportunity to ensure that young people get the right messages, and that they do not just stand on the terraces or participate in sport and get the wrong messages. One problem, as the hon. Gentleman said, is that only a few key sports people have come out across a number of sports.

Chris Bryant: Rugby?

Theresa May: Rugby has a better record than football. I hope that we can have a situation in which gay sports players feel that they can come out.

Tom Brake: I welcome what the Minister said in relation to the Olympics and tackling homophobia. Have the Government thought about how the Olympics can be used to encourage participating countries to tackle homophobia in their home countries?

Theresa May: The Olympic games present an important opportunity for a clear message to be sent across the world. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games has already produced a pin badge which, as well as the London 2012 logo, features a rainbow flag illustrating its commitment to tackling homophobia and transphobia in sport. It is considering what else it can do.
	We should send that message from the Olympic games to other countries, but we should do more, and I am pleased to say that Ministers have agreed to raise lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual issues with other Governments whenever possible during overseas visits. The Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), did just that during her recent trip to India and Nepal.

Disability Hate Crimes

Chris Skidmore: What steps she is taking to improve the recording of disability hate crimes.

Maria Miller: The Government are committed to better recording of hate crimes, and important progress has already been made. Since April, police forces have been formally collecting data on disability hate crime for the first time. We are working with key voluntary sector partners, including disabled people’s organisations such as Voice UK and RADAR, to encourage more reporting of hate crimes, and I think that that will make a significant contribution.

Chris Skidmore: In the light of tragic cases such as that of Fiona Pilkington, and the publication this week of Mencap’s “Don’t Stand By” report, does the Minister agree that police forces must identify the key challenges to the tackling of disability hate crime, and must use the data that they collect to improve the fight against that appalling abuse?

Maria Miller: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important for us to learn lessons. I welcome Mencap’s report, and was delighted to attend its launch earlier this week.
	The police face a number of challenges, including not just data collection but the need to show leadership, to show that they are making the issue a priority, and to ensure that the right training is provided. I pay tribute to organisations such as Breakthrough UK in Manchester and BSafe Blackpool, with whose representatives I have discussed the issue at length.

Helen Goodman: Has the Minister discussed with the Secretary of State for Justice whether the proposal in his Bill for the duties relating to all hate crimes to be wrapped up into a general duty will enable the current focus on individual groups to be retained?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady has raised an important question. The first stage in the overall process involves our ensuring that we are aware of the magnitude of the problem, and it is therefore important that, since April, hate crimes have for the first time been recorded. As the hon. Lady suggests, we must ensure that we have access to a breakdown of the figures, and I will ensure that the appropriate people in the appropriate Ministry are aware of our feelings in that regard.

Fiona Mactaggart: As you know, Mr Speaker, I had hoped to ask a supplementary question about the impact on women of charges for learning English as a second language. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State, who has overall responsibility across Government for the women and equalities agenda, has decided that how that affects women is not an issue for her. I wonder whether she is considering only Home Office matters, but in any event this is a Home Office matter.
	Mencap’s “Stand By Me” report makes a clear demand for specialist policing. It reveals straightforwardly that police authorities with specialist police resources deal with disability hate crime more effectively than other authorities. Given that the Home Secretary is cutting the police force by removing 10,000 officers, what action will the Minister take to ensure that every police area has a specialist resource that is trained and able to deal with the issue?

Maria Miller: As the hon. Lady will know, Cabinet Office guidance on parliamentary questions governs what questions are answered in this Question Time.
	It is important for us to take account of individual areas in the country and the needs that may arise there. The position is different in each police authority area, and local police constables and chief police constables should be able to take account of that. However, the police alone do not provide the answer. Disabled people’s
	organisations have an important role to play in helping to ensure that disabled people feel that they have an opportunity to report crimes accurately, and I pay tribute to those organisations for the work that they are doing in that regard.

David Hanson: What recent assessment she has made of trends in the number of disability hate crimes.

Gerry Sutcliffe: What recent assessment she has made of trends in the number of disability hate crimes.

Maria Miller: Until recently there has been no formal collection of data on disability hate crime. We are committed to promoting better recording of it, and from April this year forces started collecting the relevant data. When the statistics are published next summer we will have a clearer picture of local patterns and trends, which will help the police target their resources in the most effective way.

David Hanson: The Minister will know that following the publication of the Mencap report on Monday, there are some positive suggestions about how we can encourage further reporting of hate crime. Will she agree to have a discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers to consider what I know from experience are very difficult issues?

Maria Miller: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that we are already having such conversations with ACPO. It is very important that those discussions include disabled people and the organisations that represent them, because they have an important role to play.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I welcome the Minister’s comments on reporting, but how can we give disability organisations and disabled people themselves the confidence to report crime? What work can take place on that?

Maria Miller: I reiterate the role that user-led organisations can have, such as the one in Blackpool, BSafe, that I visited with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). Such organisations can have a real effect by giving people the confidence to report. If they have the right systems in place—we are helping RADAR develop those systems—third-party reporting can be effective as well.

Andrew Percy: As schools already report any incidents of hatred against disabled people, will the Minister work with the Department for Education to ensure that the trends reported in schools are carried over to Home Office figures? Will the two Departments work together so that if there is a problem of hatred against disabled people in schools, the Home Office is aware of it and will work with schools to address it?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I will ensure that it is taken up.

Anne Begg: I was surprised to discover that the data have not been collected, so that trends cannot be found. I welcome the Government’s commitment to collecting those data. May I suggest, however, that the Government also consider the catalyst of the crime that is reported, particularly as a number of disabled people say that they have been spat at in the street or called scroungers because of some of the headlines that have been in the newspapers?

Maria Miller: After 13 years of the previous Administration, it is a shame that speedier action was not taken on that. I am glad that the coalition Government have taken action so quickly.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that we are dealing with the symptoms, not the causes, of the problem. That is why we are putting a great deal of effort and energy into ensuring that there are positive images of disabled people. We have a consultation at the moment on how to involve more disabled people in political life. Having disabled people at the centre of decision making will help to change people’s attitudes.

Rape Prosecutions

Dan Jarvis: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on steps to increase the rate of prosecution for rape.

Lynne Featherstone: Rape prosecution is regularly discussed at ministerial level through the inter-ministerial group on violence against women. It is completely unacceptable that so many women and men are victims of this abhorrent crime. We have taken action to support rape victims and improve prosecutions by training specialist rape prosecutors in all areas, providing £1.72 million of funding a year for independent sexual violence advisers who support victims through the criminal justice system, and putting funding for rape support centres on a stable footing.

Dan Jarvis: Around 5,000 people each year are arrested on suspicion of rape and not charged. Some have gone on to commit further offences and been convicted as a result of being on the DNA database. The Prime Minister was not able to answer this question yesterday, so perhaps the Minister will today. Why does she think it is right to get rid of the DNA of those arrested for but not charged with rape?

Lynne Featherstone: Mainly because they are innocent. The Government start from the principle that someone who is arrested for, or charged with, a criminal offence but not subsequently convicted is innocent. Unlike the last Government, we will not hold the DNA of 1 million innocent people indefinitely. While they were busy filling the database with the DNA of innocent people, they absolutely failed to collect the DNA of the guilty, who were liable and had been convicted, and who might very well offend again.

Lorely Burt: My hon. Friend has written that nine out of 10 rapes go unreported, and that 38% of serious sexual assault victims tell no one about their experience. Reported rape is just the tip of the iceberg. I know that we are putting £10.5 million into rape centres, but what can we do to encourage victims to walk through their doors in the first place?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is quite right that reported rape is the tip of the iceberg. The funding—stable funding, unlike under the previous Government—to support rape centres right across the country is one thing we can do. We are also filling in the gaps: we will have centres in Hereford, Trafford, Devon and Dorset this year, and more work is being done to identify other areas so that coverage goes right across the country. The police have a job to do too, in the work that they do to send out a message loud—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the House and to facilitate Back Benchers, but we must have short questions and short answers.

Yvette Cooper: I am sorry that the Home Secretary chose not to answer that question, because it was raised in Prime Minister’s questions and it is a serious issue. The answer from the Minister for Equalities to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) was deeply unsatisfactory. She is keeping on the database the DNA of people who have been charged but not convicted. However, she is refusing to keep the DNA of those who
	are arrested but not charged. In those 5,000 cases, the police have decided that there is enough evidence to pass a case to the Crown Prosecution Service, but the CPS has decided not to charge.
	We know that, for a series of reasons, rape is notoriously difficult to charge and convict, and we know that there is evidence among those 5,000 cases of people who have committed serious offences and who will go on to offend again. Under the Minister’s rules, the DNA of John Warboys would not have been kept. Will the Minister now think again and do something serious to increase rape prosecutions?

Lynne Featherstone: What the right hon. Lady has said is not accurate. When someone is arrested, there are circumstances under which the DNA can be retained. I shall run through those very briefly. DNA can be retained if the victim of the alleged offence is under 18; if the victim of the alleged offence is a vulnerable adult; if the victim of the alleged offence is in a close relationship with the subject; and, to answer her point precisely, if the police consider that retention is necessary to safeguard the public.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for next week will be:
	Monday 27 June—A debate on House of Lords reform.
	Tuesday 28 June—Remaining stages of the Finance (No.3) Bill (day one).
	Wednesday 29 June—Second Reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
	Thursday 30 June—A motion to bring in a resolution, on which a Bill is to be brought in, followed by a motion to approve a regulatory reform order relating to Epping Forest.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 4 July will include:
	Monday 4 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance (No.3) Bill (day two).
	Tuesday 5 July—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 6 July—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be debates on the Prevent strategy, and on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
	[ The  details are  as follows:  The Prevent strategy: 6 th  Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee of Session 2009-10, HC 65, “Preventing Violent Extremism”.
	Afghanistan and Pakistan: 4th Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 2010-12, HC 514,  “The  UK ’ s foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan ” ; and the Government’s response ,  CM 8064. ]
	At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Thursday 7 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 30 June 2011 will be:
	Thursday 30 June—A debate on co-operatives and mutuality in the economy.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply.
	On tonight’s vote on stopping the use of wild animals in circuses, will the Leader of the House reassure us that the Government are not whipping their vote? Would it not be ironic if the whip were used to defeat the ban so that people can go on cracking a whip at circus animals?
	It is learning disability week, and yesterday I met a group from Leeds who had come to tell MPs that they face discrimination every day. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any idea that disabled people should be paid less than the minimum wage would be outrageous discrimination, and may we have a statement condemning it?
	Following your comments on Tuesday, Mr Speaker, about the Government holding press conferences on major policy announcements before they come to the House to answer questions from MPs, will the Leader of the House now make time available for the Procedure Committee’s proposals on ministerial statements to be debated? The Committee’s idea that Ministers would be forced to make a formal apology on the Floor of the House for breaching the rules might concentrate the Government’s mind.
	Last week I asked the Leader of the House about reconsidering the strategic defence review. Yesterday the Prime Minister came to the House and let slip that he is doing so already, although he had not previously told anyone, least of all the House of Commons. In the Prime Minister’s own words:
	“We have had a review of the national security and defence review over the past year”—[Official Report, 22 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 315.]
	When can we expect a statement on the outcome of the review?
	This week the climate change Secretary attacked right-wing ideologues and deregulation zealots for putting environmental regulations, including those in climate change and national parks legislation, on a list of so-called red tape that might be scrapped. We wish the Secretary of State well in his fight to save the regulations, but has the Leader of the House had any indication that the Cabinet Secretary’s right-wing, zealous Cabinet colleagues—presumably they were who he was talking about—have asked to make a statement by way of right of reply to this grave charge? If not, may we at least be given a list of their names so that we can keep score?
	On the subject of zealots, may we have a statement from the Prime Minister on how he has got on since PMQs yesterday in his desperate attempts to prevent Tory MEPs from voting against a 30% reduction in emissions—which is, after all, a coalition policy—in the European Parliament today? This is a real test of his authority, and if he fails it his claim to be leading the greenest Government ever will be in tatters.
	May I offer the Leader of the House an apology? I fear that my comments on weekly bin collections may have inadvertently contributed to a widening of the rift between the Environment Secretary and the Communities Secretary over whose turn it is to take the rubbish out. The Daily Telegraph today reported:
	“Cabinet pair ‘at daggers drawn’ after bitter bin collection feud.”
	It seems that the right hon. Lady hung up on the right hon. Gentleman, and the pair are thought not to have spoken since. A colleague said:
	“The whole thing is fairly unpleasant. . .”
	So may we have a statement on why this fragile coalition inside the Conservative party now seems to be falling apart?
	After all the policy changes, pauses, rethinks, repudiations, and U-turns in the past few weeks—by the way, I congratulate the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website on its honesty for yesterday announcing changes to the BBC World Service with the headline
	“Massive U-turn on BBC World Service funding”—
	did the Leader of the House see the conclusion drawn by one unhappy Conservative MP who this week said:
	“It’s not worth going out on a limb for something if it may be abandoned when the tabloids or the Lib Dems kick up”?
	Pity the loyal Back Benchers: they are keen to help, eager to please and want to back their Government, but they now have absolutely no idea, with all this prime ministerial hokey cokey, whether policies that are in this week might be policies that are out next week, or at the very least shaken all about. May we therefore have a statement reassuring them that if they do take the plunge and voice support for the Government, they will not be left high and dry as so many of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet colleagues have found themselves in recent weeks? Finally, does this collective loss of nerve by the Government not show just how right was the Treasury mandarin who last week complained:
	“They just don’t seem to have thought any of this stuff through”?
	Sir Humphrey could not have put it better himself.

Hon. Members: More!

George Young: We hear that the shadow Leader of the House’s bid to lead his party goes from strength to strength. I can report that following my comments last week, even The Independent has been tempted into a flutter:
	“I’d put £50 on Hilary Benn. He’s not an automatic embarrassment. His performance as shadow Leader is widely admired. And there’s the hereditary principle working in his favour.”
	With friends like those, what is holding—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the views of the Leader of the House on the hereditary principle.

George Young: As the sixth baronet, I am in favour of the hereditary principle.
	Let me turn to the shadow Leader of the House’s questions. I note in passing that he asked very few questions about next week’s business. None the less, on the motion dealing with circus animals, we are tackling a problem that he singularly failed to tackle during his time in government.

Kevin Brennan: Are you whipping?

George Young: The Government are perfectly entitled to defend their position in the House and in a Division.
	As for shadow Leader of the House’s question about disabled people and the minimum wage, the suggestion made was outrageous. It is not Government policy, and I agree with what he said about it.
	We would welcome a debate on ministerial statements. It is for the Backbench Business Committee to find time to debate the proposals of the Procedure Committee. This Government have made roughly one third more ministerial statements a day than the outgoing Administration, and we are more than anxious to keep the House fully informed. There will not be another SDSR, as the Prime Minister made clear, and there is not a review of it.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about zealots, which I believe were reported in the press, the comments and criticisms within the coalition Government are, from time to time, made by members of two different parties, whereas in the previous Government much
	more offensive comments were made about Ministers in the same party, so I am not sure that he should raise the issue on the Floor on the House.
	So far as MEPs are concerned, the coalition’s policy is wholly unaffected by what happens in the European Parliament. The coalition Government’s commitment to reducing CO2 emissions and climate change remains unaffected.
	As for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the additional £2.2 million for the Arabic service, for which there was support among Members on both sides of the House. In the context of a budget for the World Service of some £250 million, it is difficult to describe that as a mammoth U-turn. It is a sensible and welcome change in response to pressure from the House.
	So far as rethinking Government policies is concerned, I wonder how long it will be before the right hon. Gentleman’s party reconsiders the shadow Chancellor’s view on a reduction in VAT, which it seems was introduced without any consultation with his colleagues.

Alan Haselhurst: Would my right hon. Friend consider it appropriate to hold a debate in Government time on the future of the Commonwealth? We are approaching an important Heads of Government conference in the autumn and, more imminently, the centennial conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association here in London.

George Young: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s work as chairman of the CPA in organising an important conference at the end of next month. I am glad that a number of my ministerial colleagues will speak at the conference, which I hope will be a great success. I would be misleading him, however, if I said that I could find time between now and the summer recess for a debate on the Commonwealth, but I hope that there might be an opportunity to raise the issue in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions or perhaps to seek a debate in Westminster Hall.

Natascha Engel: I am sorry to go on about this, but the Leader of the House gives me absolutely no option. The Government are not sticking to their promise of allocating one day a week as Back-Bench time. At the moment, we are running at about one day a month, and I am sure that the problem cannot possibly be the subjects that we are choosing to debate on the Floor of the House, so will he please again consider allocating one set, regular, non-Thursday slot as Back-Bench time?

George Young: Let me reassure the hon. Lady, whose work as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee I admire, that we will stick to our promise that there will be 35 days in the Session, plus injury time because this Session is longer. We cannot offer one day every week, and a large number of days at the beginning of the Session were devoted to general debates. We might be able to catch up towards the end of the Session, but at the moment I am under enormous pressure to provide adequate time to debate Government measures, and she has a whole day today to debate Back-Bench business. I reassure her that we will honour the agreement of 35 days per Session, plus injury time because this Session is longer than normal.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A further 38 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As always, I should like to accommodate them, but I remind the House that two debates are taking place today under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, both of which are well subscribed. Brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is therefore of the essence.

James Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that he was unable to announce today a debate on the armed forces? Is he aware that the Backbench Business Committee—through no fault of its Chair, I have to say—has refused my request for a debate on the armed forces, although we have not had one since September last year, in favour of a request to debate eight or 28 circus animals? That is an important subject that would be appropriate for a debate in Westminster Hall, but I understand that that already happened a couple of weeks ago.

George Young: I understand where my right hon. Friend, who is Chair of the Defence Select Committee, is coming from, but under the Wright Committee proposals the four days per Session that were allocated for defence have been put into the pot, which is now owned by the Backbench Business Committee. It is therefore up to the Backbench Business Committee to decide how to allocate those days, and I think that his comments were addressed as much to the Committee as they were to me.

David Winnick: On parliamentary accountability, or the lack of it, why did the Secretary of State for Defence table a written statement today on the cost of the military operation in Libya, rather than making an oral statement at the Dispatch Box? Is it not unfortunate that we get our information either from the media or from written statements, and that the Minister responsible does not come here to explain and justify his actions and to answer questions accordingly?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have not made a statement, but he is holding in his hand the Government’s statement. As I said a few moments ago, the record of this Government on making statements is better than the record of the Government whom he supported.

Rob Wilson: Following the schools Minister’s welcome announcement this morning that grammar schools such as those in my constituency will be allowed to expand, may we have a debate on grammar schools and their positive impact on social mobility?

George Young: Again, my hon. Friend’s request might have been heard by the Backbench Business Committee. The policy of the coalition Government is that, where grammar schools exist, they should be allowed to expand. We are not, however, in favour of starting them in areas that do not have them. I personally would welcome such a debate, and I hope that that can be arranged through the Backbench Business Committee or possibly on the Adjournment.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House will know that the base interest rate is 0.5%. Is he aware that my constituents and others up and down the land are paying 19.1% interest on their credit cards? The failure of the credit card industry to lower its rates in line with the base rate has ripped off our constituents by £500 million. When may we have a debate on the way in which interest rates are ripping off consumers and small businesses?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern at the gap between the base rate and the rate charged by credit card companies and other lending organisations. There will be an opportunity to raise this matter of consumer protection in questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as well as in Treasury questions. Alternatively, the hon. Gentleman could apply for a debate on the Adjournment.

Peter Bone: May we have a statement next week from the Leader of the House on why the Government are rowing back on their commitment to provide a day a week for Back-Bench business? It is no good for him to suggest that Members refer their requests to the Backbench Business Committee if the Government are not giving us any days. May I suggest that it is his job to resist pressure from the Executive for debates?

George Young: I am under enormous pressure from both sides of the House to provide adequate time to debate Government legislation. We have accommodated two days for the Report stages of a number of Bills because we think it important that the House has adequate time for such debates. If my hon. Friend looks at the Standing Orders, he will see that the commitment was to 35 days per Session, not to one day a week. As I said to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), we will abide by our commitment. I must also point out that there would be no Backbench Business Committee at all, were it not for the coalition Government introducing one.

Pat Glass: There is a Focus store in Consett in my constituency, as I am sure there are in many others. I have been contacted by Kingfisher, the parent company, which wants to take over the store and all its staff, but it has been advised that it will not get a decision from the Office of Fair Trading until September. That will be too late for my constituents, who will be made redundant by the Focus receiver on 18 July. The redundancy payments and welfare benefits represent a massive cost that does not need to be incurred. May we have a statement on what action the Government will take to speed up the OFT’s decision?

George Young: Of course I understand the concern that the hon. Lady expresses on behalf of her constituents, and I will contact the OFT today to remind it of her concern and ask it for an urgent response.

Priti Patel: Local communities in my constituency have been left devastated after the Planning Inspectorate imposed Traveller sites on various communities, based on the outdated planning policies of the previous Government. A Government consultation is taking place on the planning circulars. May we have a debate, so that Members can influence that consultation?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. It sounds as though that decision was reached under the existing rules on Traveller sites. Our view is that the rules are not fit for purpose, so we are consulting on an alternative set of proposals. The consultation closes on 6 July, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will respond to it. I cannot promise her a debate on the subject she raises, but the Localism Bill is now in another place, where there might be an opportunity to debate proposals on Traveller sites.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that hundreds of Derbyshire constituents are up in arms at the prospect of there not being an oral statement about the railway contract that went to Siemens in Germany, rather than to Bombardier in Derby? Why are this Government not acting like the Government in Germany, where about 90% of the contracts stay in Germany? About 100% of such contracts stay in France. And do not tell me it is because of what the last Government did; this Government are supposed to be doing something else. I never voted for the free movement of capital and labour, unlike the Leader of the House and thousands of others. Stop rolling over to the EU!

George Young: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in Transport questions a few moments ago when that subject was raised.

Dennis Skinner: I was. I tried to get in.

George Young: If he was listening, he would have heard that the terms of the tender were set by the Government who, from time to time, he supported. His point about Ministers not being able to defend the proposition is wholly untrue; we defended it a few moments ago.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Local Government Boundary Commission’s review of Daventry district has united all political parties locally and a huge number of the parishes against the proposals. Few if any of the views expressed in the consultation period have been taken into account, and I am being asked to pray against the measure when it is placed before the House after the summer. Will the Leader of the House advise me on the parliamentary routes available to me to get the Local Government Boundary Commission to listen to the views of my constituents?

George Young: The short answer is no, but I will write to my hon. Friend outlining the procedures available to him to pursue this important matter.

Hywel Williams: May we have an urgent statement on the newly leaked plans to close seven of the eight HMRC offices in Wales, leading to a possible 1,000 redundancies and affecting the quality not only of the service in Wales generally but in particular of the service through the medium of Welsh provided in Porthmadog?

George Young: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which I will convey to the appropriate Minister and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as he can.

David Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the apprenticeships programme, in the light of today’s excellent news about apprenticeship numbers? We should all be delighted that there are 114,000 more apprenticeships in the year, which will provide real opportunities for our young people.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I commend to the House the written ministerial statement from the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. There will be some 25,000 more apprenticeship places as a result of the steps we have taken, and we see that as an important part of the road to recovery and dealing with the high youth unemployment that we inherited.

Denis MacShane: Ahead of the visit by the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, may we have a debate on human rights in China? We welcome the release yesterday on conditional bail of Ai Weiwei, but the Nobel peace prize winner Liu Xiaobo is still banged up in the Chinese communist gulag. When the Prime Minister meets his opposite number here in London, will he say in public that Liu Xiaobo should be freed? He did not do so in China, which I think was contemptible, but now that the Chinese Premier is coming to English democratic territory, will he tell him to his face to release Liu Xiaobo?

George Young: I welcome the release to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I give him the assurance that my right hon. Friends will raise with the Chinese delegation the important issue of human rights, and I am sure that they will do so diplomatically and effectively.

Nick de Bois: On a recent visit to an RAF station, it was highlighted to me that junior rank servicemen living in single room accommodation in blocks of more than 40 still have to pay the full television licence, even when serving abroad. With Armed Forces day approaching, could we have a statement from the relevant Minister to see whether we could review that situation?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. There will be an opportunity to question Defence Ministers on 4 July, when he might have an opportunity to raise the matter during topical questions.

Kevin Brennan: I am also in favour of the hereditary principle because, just like the right hon. Gentleman, I come from a very long line of parents. I know he reads the Daily Mirror. Has he seen today’s report that Cardiff has been listed in National Geographic magazine as one of the top 10 alternative places to visit this summer? May we have a debate on tourism and the importance of promoting and publicising our wonderful cities like Cardiff?

George Young: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman risks setting up a bidding war between every Member who believes that his or her constituency is the best one to visit for holidays, but he has achieved his objective by putting his views on the record.

Neil Parish: May I urge the Leader of the House to support having a debate on the rare cancer of neuroblastoma? My constituent, Mr Samual Daubany-Nunn, suffers from this rare cancer and has to go to Germany to get treatment. Some primary care trusts fund going to Germany for treatment, but the one in my constituency does not do so at the moment. I really think that people should be treated fairly throughout the country.

George Young: I share my hon. Friend’s concern. He will know that we have put extra resources into cancer treatment over the past year, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Jim Sheridan: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1956:
	[That this House recognises the sacrifice of the UK's atomic test veterans; notes that many test veterans are now ill; further notes that many countries have paid compensation to ex-service personnel who were exposed to atomic tests; believes that atomic test veterans fulfilled their military duties in good faith; and urges the Government to make an ex-gratia payment to the UK's atomic test veterans.]
	It calls for compensation payments to atomic test veterans. This issue has gone on for an extremely long time. At one time or another, we all praise the hard work of our armed forces; now is the time to turn those words into deeds. After all, there are not many of these veterans left and they are probably now outnumbered by lawyers.

George Young: As the hon. Gentleman was good enough to concede, this problem has been going on for some time. There will be an opportunity to raise it with Defence Ministers on 4 July. In the meantime, I will remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence of the concern that this matter remains outstanding and urge him to do all he can to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

Lorely Burt: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and, this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister are calling for shares in Northern Rock and Lloyds, which we substantially own, to be distributed to the British people. Given the interest in this proposal, may we please debate it on the Floor of the House?

George Young: Indeed, that is one of a number of options. I think the reference was to Lloyds and HBOS, as I think a Treasury statement about Northern Rock was made last week. It is important to have an open debate about the options available to the Government when the time is right for transferring these banks to the private sector. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I am sure there will be opportunities, perhaps in the remaining stages of the Finance Bill, to deal with it.

Ann Clwyd: Is the Leader of the House aware that Syrians living in London are being threatened and intimidated by agents of the Assad regime? Does he know that these people have been photographed and the photographs shown to their families
	in Syria? The Syrian ambassador is about the Houses of Parliament this morning. Has he been called in and told that that is totally unacceptable behaviour in this country, which believes in freedom of expression and freedom of speech?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising this matter. We are indeed aware of the reports and we are discussing them with the Metropolitan police. Any evidence of offences committed by embassy staff—or, indeed, anybody else—against demonstrators should be reported to the police. Anybody who has any such information should do the same. We will, of course, take up with the police any information they receive regarding alleged offences by the Syrian or any other embassy, and we will take the appropriate action.

Philip Hollobone: What has been the role of the Leader of the House in framing the new construct for the release of Government information—namely, a written ministerial statement, a press conference and then an oral statement to this House? Given your very clear pronouncement on this issue, Mr Speaker, will my right hon. Friend assure us that this will not happen again?

George Young: On the specific issue that my hon. Friend mentions, we were following a precedent established by the previous Government. In December 2009, for example, Labour published its “smarter government” strategy via a written ministerial statement; it was then followed by a detailed speech by the then Prime Minister and an oral statement took place later in the afternoon. I have, of course, heard what you, Mr Speaker, said on both 14 and 21 June. I recognise that there is a balance to be struck between observing the proprieties of the House and informing the public. I will draw the attention of my ministerial colleagues to both those rulings and to my hon. Friend’s point.

Barry Gardiner: May we have a statement on compliance with UN resolution 1973? We found out this week that the war in Libya is costing £0.25 billion and that this country’s military leadership believe that our armed forces are overstretched in engaging in that endeavour. May we now have a debate to find out why British troops are not enforcing the ceasefire on both sides, but acting as the military wing for the rebels in a civil war?

George Young: The Government have done all they can to keep the House in the picture on Libya—and, indeed, on Afghanistan and other issues. There will be an opportunity on 4 July to raise these issues again with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House may be aware of the possibilities for an early debate—I hope so, anyway—to discuss the guidance issued under the Reservoirs Act 1975 by the Institution of Civil Engineers, as approved by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. At no stage has the House considered this guidance, which caused the failure of a flood defence in Pickering. May we have an early opportunity to discuss and, possibly, amend these guidance notes?

George Young: I will raise those issues with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I cannot promise a debate. I was concerned to learn about the incident to which my hon. Friend referred. She might like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment in the meantime.

Stephen Twigg: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the situation in Sudan? In recent weeks, tens of thousands of Nuba people have been displaced from their homes, and we have seen the resumption of aerial bombardment by Khartoum. In two weeks’ time, South Sudan takes its place in the league of nations, but the situation is very fragile. May we have an opportunity to debate it in the House?

George Young: I am aware of problems in Sudan, following the referendum and the decision to split the country. There will be an opportunity to raise this during Foreign Office questions in the middle of next month, but in the meantime I will share the hon. Gentleman’s concern with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and ask him to write to him.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate on procedure? Politics is about choices. We have a slightly bizarre situation whereby it is possible and in order to draw attention to Opposition policies in debate, but not in questions. Surely the Opposition’s approach to debt and the deficit and their proposals for unfunded VAT cuts must be a matter of parliamentary interest and a matter of concern to the country.

George Young: That may be a question that you, Mr Speaker, feel better placed to answer than me. As my hon. Friend will know, we had an opportunity yesterday to test the Opposition on their VAT policies and, indeed, found them wanting. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will have heard what my hon. Friend has said about the propriety of questions on Opposition policies.

Mr Speaker: Yes. Questions are to the Government about the policies and proposals of the Government. ’Twas ever thus and ’tis still so.

Chris Williamson: May we have an urgent debate on how to secure the future of the British train manufacturing industry, following the decision to appoint Siemens as the preferred bidder for the Thameslink contract, which will potentially cost 3,000 jobs at Bombardier based in Derby and a further 12,000 jobs in the supply chain? This could spell the end of the British train manufacturing industry because, come this autumn, Bombardier’s order books are empty.

George Young: Of course I understand the concern felt in Derby about what has happened, but there has just been an opportunity to ask Ministers about this issue at Transport Questions, and questions were asked, and answers were given.

Kris Hopkins: As this is a time when both central and local government are short of money, I ask that a Minister come to the House to explain, perhaps by making a statement, how we are supporting local government and the police in pursuing litter louts.
	That may seem a trivial issue, but my local authority is spending £6 million a year picking up rubbish, and that money could be spent on educating kids or looking after the elderly.

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I cannot promise a debate on this important issue, but perhaps he would like to put in for an Adjournment debate so that he can expand his ideas at greater length.

Albert Owen: May I again press the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on energy prices? He kindly suggested that I should make a request to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, yet I am, in fact, a member, and we have dealt with the issue on many occasions. Ofgem has made its proposals clear, yet prices are still rising. This issue affects every constituency, and such a debate would provide an opportunity for all Members to discuss it, and to stop our constituents getting ripped off.

George Young: I note the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Energy prices have risen by about 50% over the past 12 months. We have taken a number of initiatives: the cold weather payments are being maintained at their higher level, and we also have winter fuel payments, Warm Front and the green deal. We are doing all we can to reduce energy costs, particularly for poorer-income households, at a time of rising prices.

Stephen Barclay: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), I welcome the announcement of 114,000 new apprenticeships and pay tribute to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning for his sterling work on that. However, may we have a debate or a statement on why so many publicly funded organisations—such as the Charity Commission and the Met Office—currently offer no apprenticeships whatever?

George Young: I would be very grateful to my hon. Friend if he would let me have a list of the public bodies he thinks are not pulling their weight in offering apprenticeships, and we will, of course, then pursue the matter through the appropriate Minister.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a debate in Government time on what more the Government can do about the increase in fuel prices—they have gone up by 10% in the last year, compared with an average rise in retail prices of 5%—especially since the fuel duty stabiliser does not seem to have cut prices at the pumps?

George Young: As a consequence of the fuel duty stabiliser, the price of petrol at the pumps is 6p a litre less than it would otherwise have been. We have the warm home discount, which amounts to £250 million a year, and the Warm Front scheme helping 47,000 families. We are also giving Post Office account holders a discount, and as a result of the £1.9 billion fuel duty package the typical Ford Focus driver will be £56 better off. We have, therefore, taken steps to try to insulate people against the higher fuel prices.

Bob Blackman: The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the RMT—is threatening, on a minority vote of its membership, to make travelling in London a misery over the next few weeks. May we have a debate in Government time on requiring unions to secure a majority vote of their membership before they can take industrial action?

George Young: I very much hope that the RMT will not go ahead with the industrial dispute, which will cause widespread disruption in London. I am aware of my hon. Friend’s views on changing the law—and, indeed, those of the Mayor of London. We have said that we plan to keep the industrial relations legislation under review, but as of now we have no plans to change it.

Stephen McCabe: I thank the Leader of the House for persuading his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government to see sense over the ridiculous plan to impose a shadow executive mayor on Birmingham. May we now have a debate on the equally ridiculous plan to make the people of Birmingham pay for the Government’s referendum at a time when their budgets are being cut to the bone?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Localism Bill, which is now in another place, and to a number of Government amendments to it. If he has colleagues in the other place who share his concerns in respect of Birmingham, there will be an opportunity to press the Government further on the second issue that he raised.

John Glen: On 12 October last year, I had the privilege of a visit from the public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), to Porton Down in my constituency, when she said she hoped a decision about the future location of that facility would be made by the end of the year. I raised this matter in the House on 11 March, yet we are still no clearer. Does the Leader of the House agree that the time has now come for the Government to make a statement and thereby address the uncertainty felt by the large number of my constituents who work at Porton Down?

George Young: As I am my hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour and constituents of mine also work at Porton Down, I understand the concern felt locally about this matter. I will raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with the relevant health Minister in order to try to discover the timetable for this decision.

Owen Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware that his colleague the Secretary of State for Wales has failed in the last 13 months in that job to say a single word from the Dispatch Box about Wales, save at Wales Questions. Will he prevail upon her to try to raise her subterranean profile in this House, and secure a debate in Government time on matters of importance to the people of Wales?

George Young: I have the good fortune to sit next to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales at Wales Questions, and I would have thought that 15 or 30 minutes would be sufficient time to deal with all the
	questions likely to be raised by Opposition Members. So far as the call for a debate is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that following the recommendations of the Wright Committee a decision on a debate on Wales—or London or any other part of the country—is now a matter for the Backbench Business Committee.

Harriett Baldwin: May we have a debate on the causes of child poverty? Members on both sides of the House are concerned that it costs 50p for every pound that the Child Support Agency is able to get to children, and that the arrears are £3.8 billion. We could also talk about the provision in the Welfare Reform Bill that gives parents much greater incentive to work and therefore lift their households out of poverty, including their children.

George Young: My hon. Friend is right: children growing up in households where a generation or more has not worked is a real issue. I think I am right in saying that the Work programme is the UK’s single biggest employment support programme. I hope it will help to end the cycle of worklessness that has blighted many families, and all out-of-work benefit customers will be able to access the programme at a time that is right for them.

Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister is currently in Brussels attending the European Council meeting trying to prevent a crisis across Europe which would make Lehman Brothers look like a small event. The House again did not have a debate ahead of the European Council, however. I know that the Leader of the House thinks that this is Back-Bench business. If that is so, may we have a debate on what he thinks is Front-Bench business?

George Young: In a nutshell, Front-Bench business is the Government’s programme of legislation. There was a statement about Greece on Monday, and I know my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will want to keep the House in the picture on what happens at the European Council. The question of the House having a debate before European Council meetings is, as the hon. Lady knows, a matter for the Backbench Business Committee.

Nigel Mills: This morning, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that he was looking into the impact of the European Union procurement regulations and how France and Germany manage to procure their trains from their own domestic manufacturers, yet we seem to be unable to do so. Given the great interest that there will be in such a review, may we have a statement or a debate so that the Secretary of State can hear the full views of the House on this controversial issue?

George Young: I understand the concern that is felt on both sides of the House about the procurement process for rolling stock and engines. I wonder whether the best way to proceed might be to have a debate on the final day before the recess, if the Backbench Business Committee decides to have a series of Adjournment debates, or for a Member to apply for an Adjournment debate in the Chamber or Westminster Hall.

Bridget Phillipson: My constituent Joe Arthur was attacked, and subsequently died, while on holiday in Corfu in 2006. Five years on, the three individuals connected to his death are still awaiting trial in Greece. Mr Arthur’s family have received exceptional support from Northumbria police, but they want justice. Will the Leader of the House arrange for me to meet a Foreign Office Minister to discuss the case and see what further assistance can be offered to the family?

George Young: I am very sorry to learn of the death of the hon. Lady’s constituent. Of course I will contact a ministerial colleague at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to arrange a meeting for the hon. Lady.

Neil Carmichael: May I, too, highlight the importance of human rights and human dignity, by drawing to the attention of the House the fate of the Baha’i religious community in Iran? May we have a debate to underline the importance of concerted action to promote human rights, as the Helsinki accords of 1975 did for people in eastern Europe in the following decades?

George Young: Persecution of any individual on the grounds of their religious faith is unacceptable. I am aware of the problems faced by the Baha’i community in Iran. The FCO makes regular representations on this matter here, and we also make representations to the Iranian Government so that this persecution can be brought to an end.

Nick Smith: In south Wales over the past three years the theft of metal from train lines has cost £3 million. Last year alone, there were 84 instances of cable theft in our area, leading to train journey delays. May we have a debate on this issue, which is making the lives of train commuters miserable?

George Young: I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who will no doubt want to contact the British Transport police to see whether more effective action can be taken to deter these sorts of thefts and bring the criminals to justice.

Andrew Stephenson: Further to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) and for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) does the Leader of the House agree that a debate on apprenticeships would be a suitable birthday present for the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, whose birthday it is today, given the massive increase in apprenticeships that was announced this morning?

George Young: By a miracle, my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning is now in his place and will have heard those wishes for a happy birthday, which I am sure are shared by hon. Members on both sides. I pay tribute to him for what he has been doing. It is a substantial achievement to have delivered 326,700 apprenticeships in the first nine months of this academic year and
	114,000 in the previous year—more than double what we set out to do. That is the right way to provide a sound platform for long-term economic prosperity.

Tom Blenkinsop: May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about why the Government have decided to stop publishing time to pay statistics in July and whether this is the beginning of the end of time to pay?

George Young: I will make suitable inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman about time to pay.

Gavin Barwell: Notwithstanding yesterday’s Opposition day debate, may we have a specific debate on tax so that we can, among other things, consider the shadow Chancellor’s proposal for a £12 billion unfunded tax cut, on which all Members, but perhaps members of the shadow Cabinet in particular, might appreciate the chance to have an opinion?

George Young: We all enjoyed yesterday’s debate in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor trounced the shadow Chancellor on his economic strategy. The Opposition have left their tax cut open-ended and unfunded. They have not given any definition of what constitutes “growing strongly again” and would simply be adding £51 billion to the deficit at the end of this Parliament.

Fiona Mactaggart: May we have a statement on the accountability of the Government on women and equalities? Today, an oral question on the impact on women of the increases in fees for courses in English as a second language was transferred to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Department has form on this: on 3 March, I raised in questions to the Leader of the House the fact that questions on women and pensions had been transferred. How can we hold the Government to account given that we have only quarter of an hour for questions and no topical questions and given that questions specifically about the impact of Government policies on women are ducked by the Ministers responsible for women’s policies?

George Young: I say to the hon. Lady that we have adopted precisely the same arrangements for questions about women as we inherited from the outgoing Government.

Alex Cunningham: I have been delighted by the response to my ten-minute rule Bill to ban smoking in cars when children are present, but I am aware that despite support from across the House and the country, the chances of the Bill getting a further detailed hearing are very slim. Will the Leader of the House therefore provide time for a full debate on the Floor of the House so that the topic can be aired in much greater detail?

George Young: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having got a Second Reading for his Bill yesterday but I would be misleading him if I said that there was any time within the Government’s programme to adopt it. However, there will be an opportunity in the next Session for him to apply for a private Member’s Bill slot.

Chris Bryant: May we have a debate on the solving of conundrums? Or perhaps the Leader of the House could solve one for me. The latest figures show that, at the moment, for every job available in the Rhondda there are 84 people seeking that job, whereas in his constituency of North West Hampshire there are only two people seeking each available job. So far as I can understand the Department for Work and Pensions’ view on all this, the way to resolve the situation is for everybody from my constituency to move to his constituency. The vast majority of my constituents own their own home, but their homes are not worth the kind of money they would need to buy a home in his constituency, so what are my constituents to do to try to get into work?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman’s constituents would always be very welcome in North West Hampshire, but I understand the issue he raises. I think that the answer to his question is the Work programme, which is the biggest and most ambitious work programme ever to get people back into work. In addition, the Government are taking steps to build long-term, sustainable recovery, which I am sure will reach south Wales as fast it reaches anywhere else.

Kevan Jones: May we have a Government statement on the Government’s plans to mark the 100th anniversary in 2014 of the beginning of the first world war? I visited Belgium a few weeks ago, as a member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and the other commissioners and I were briefed on the extensive work going on there. That contrasts with the confusion in the UK, where it appears that a decision is yet to be taken on whether the Ministry of Defence or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will take the lead on that anniversary.

George Young: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that we should commemorate this anniversary properly. As a former Minister in the MOD, he will have a good background to this matter. I will raise it with MOD Ministers to make sure that we take appropriate action to commemorate this important anniversary.

Points of Order

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) is the lead Member on one of the motions we are debating later, but yesterday a pager message was sent out to Conservative MPs cancelling all leave and requiring them to come and vote against the Back-Bench motion this afternoon. Is there any way that the hon. Gentleman, who is a Conservative Member of Parliament, can be forced by the Conservative Whips to withdraw or vote against his own motion, and what would happen in those circumstances?

Mr Speaker: First of all, I do not entertain hypothetical questions. Secondly, that is not a point of order and, thirdly, I say—with an audible sigh of relief—that I am not responsible for the conduct of the Whips.

Fiona Mactaggart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have heard my question to the Leader of the House about the accountability of the Government on women and equalities matters. He said that the arrangements had not changed at all, but I dispute that. I do not believe that the previous Government ever transferred oral questions on women and equalities to other Government Departments—and certainly not with the frequency that this Government are doing so. Is there something that you can do to protect the rights of Back Benchers to hold the Government to account on issues of women and equalities? At present, we do not have a Select Committee, we have only 15 minutes for questions, there are no topical questions and Ministers are not answering questions if they do not like them.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for advance notice of her intention to raise it. She has put her views very firmly and explicitly on the record. There is very little I can do about this matter, but let me say to her that I have considerable sympathy with Members who seek to ask oral questions on what might be described as cross-cutting subjects. As she and the House are aware, transfers are a matter for the Government, but I am sure that her point of order will have been noted. When a Member tables an orderly question to a Department in respect of that Department’s responsibilities, it is unfortunate if it is transferred and we need to keep an eye on the matter. The hon. Lady should seek the advice of the Table Office before the next oral questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point that was raised in questions to the Leader of the House by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), there is still the remaining issue of how to deal with the fact that the Government are regularly briefing the press before briefing the House of Commons. [ Interruption. ] Many of us also deprecated it when it was done by the Labour Government. I realise that it is very difficult for you to exercise any direct powers in relation to the Government, but this is a question not only of supply but of demand. Might I suggest that any journalist whom you find has written an article saying, “Tomorrow, the Government will announce that…” should have their pass withdrawn so that they cannot work in the House any longer?

Mr Speaker: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of the House, that it is extremely naughty of him to tempt me in that way. I think he should be careful about such an approach. The wider point he raises has been raised a number of times in the past couple of weeks. I have made my views about it extremely clear in the House and in the conversations that inevitably take place about these matters. I think it is extremely important that the responsibility of Government to explain and answer first to Parliament is accepted and that effect is given to it. It would be very unfortunate if a regular pattern of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has been complaining about were to develop. If, in extremis, this were to continue to happen, and as a consequence the Government’s own business were to be damaged or lost as a result of what might be described as retaliatory action, that would of course be very unfortunate.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[29th Allotted Day]

Transport Committee Report (Coastguard)

Louise Ellman: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the publication of the Sixth Report from the Transport Select Committee on The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group, HC 948.
	I am delighted to present the Transport Committee’s report on the Floor of the House, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me this opportunity. It is an encouraging development for the House and I hope that it will continue to be utilised for other key Select Committee reports.
	This report warrants being presented here today because there has been so much interest across the House and from many members of the public about the future of the coastguard service. It is fair to say that the overwhelming view of Members, from all parties and regardless of whether their constituency happens to include a coastguard centre, has been deep concern about the proposals.
	The report looks at the three areas addressed by the Government: first, the plans for the drastic closure of coastguard co-ordination centres; secondly, the withdrawal of the Government’s funding for emergency towing vehicles; and, thirdly, the removal of Government funding for the specialist firefighting service at sea. We received a great deal of written evidence from serving and volunteer coastguards, all of which was critical of the Government’s proposals, and most of which was highly critical. Unfortunately, most coastguards were prohibited by the Government from giving oral evidence to the Committee; we criticise that decision in our report. However, we were able to visit the coastguard centres at Falmouth, Clyde and Stornoway, and I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee agree that those visits proved invaluable in learning about the operation of the centres at first hand and enabling us to speak to serving and volunteer coastguards about their concerns, although those were informal discussions rather than official evidence.

Albert Owen: I congratulate the Committee and my hon. Friend as its Chair on an excellent report. I think the Government will take notice of it, because they said they would wait for the report and act on its conclusions. Does my hon. Friend agree that had coastguards across the United Kingdom had an opportunity for input into the future of the service, MPs’ debates would have had a different tone? More important, are not the proposals a way forward for the Government, not a way out, and must they not include input from all coastguards?

Louise Ellman: We were extremely critical of how the proposals were put together, excluding any opportunity for input from serving coastguards.
	Our report is unanimous. We recognise that modernisation of the coastguard is desirable. We see the coastguard as an essential emergency service, whose work load is increasing, and any proposals to restructure the service must not be made in haste.

Sheryll Murray: Does the hon. Lady agree that willingness to listen and change policy is a sign of strength, as the Prime Minister asserted at this week’s press conference? My regional paper emphasised that point today in an article which concluded that the consequences would be counted in lives lost.

Louise Ellman: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Our concern is about the saving of lives. The Government have indeed stated that they are listening; the test will in part be their reaction to our report.
	The Committee cannot support the Government’s proposals for the future of the coastguard in their current form, and we call on the Government to withdraw them. The evidence that we received raised serious concerns that safety would be jeopardised if the proposals proceeded. That is why we call on the Government to withdraw them and issue revised plans that address the points that we have raised. Those proposals should be substantially different from those that have been offered, and they should be subject to a further short period of consultation.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her report. One of the most devastating of her recommendations was:
	“It appears to us that the current proposals pay more attention to the MCA’s statutory obligations towards the commercial shipping industry and far less to its obligations towards leisure craft and small boat users. Accidents involving commercial vessels represent only a small proportion of all those that the Coastguard manage.”

Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point; we noted that although the proposals appeared to address the commercial shipping sector to some degree, they seemed to ignore smaller vessels and the fishing industry. We were extremely concerned about that omission.

Julian Huppert: I congratulate the hon. Lady and the Committee on an excellent report that raises a number of alarming concerns about both coastguards and emergency towing vessels, about which I am particularly worried and which she describes as “inviting disaster”. Given that the proposals were started under the previous Government and have taken a while to reach this stage under the current Government, does she agree that the Government should take their time to work out proper proposals? They do not have to rush into things.

Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will talk about emergency towing vehicles shortly; I accept his point that decisions about human life should not be made in haste.
	Our major concern is about safety and the loss of local knowledge, or “situational awareness”, among coastguard officers which will inevitably occur under the proposals. Reducing the number of full-time maritime rescue co-ordination centres so drastically, from 18 to three, with five centres operating in daytime only, and completely closing 10 centres, would reduce the quality and rate of exchange of information, particularly at critical points when it must be passed swiftly to save lives.

John Leech: I thank our Chairman for giving way. Does she agree that regardless of how many coastguard stations we end up with, it is vital that existing stations are open 24 hours a day to ensure operational continuity when there is an incident?

Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman played an important part in producing the report and, like the Committee, I agree that 24-hour stations should be the way forward. The Committee expresses serious concerns about the concept of daylight-only stations. The proposals assume that technology can replace local knowledge, but we were not convinced and think that that puts lives at risk. To refer again to his comments, we are not convinced that the proposal for daylight-only stations should be proceeded with.

Alan Whitehead: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend and her Committee on their excellent report. I have visited the Solent coastguard station, which would be the radio centre for most of the country under the proposals, and it was clear that it would be difficult to achieve local knowledge on the basis of those radio arrangements. Does my hon. Friend agree that even the stations that will be saved under the proposals face inadequate operating arrangements, particularly in terms of local knowledge and radio communication?

Louise Ellman: I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The concern about local knowledge or, perhaps more broadly, situational knowledge cannot be emphasised enough. Our concern in that respect relates not only to the coastguard officers themselves, but to the volunteer coastguard. When we conducted our inquiry, particularly when we visited the coastguard stations, we were struck by the amount of teamworking, which is essential. We were concerned that the proposals would endanger that teamworking. To refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I stress again the importance of considering the safety of leisure craft and small fishing vessels, as well as the commercial sector, and we felt that that part of shipping was omitted from consideration in producing the proposals.

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is the Chair of the Committee. I, too, gained a great deal from visiting the three stations—Falmouth, Greenock and Stornoway—and what struck me particularly was the willingness of the serving officers there to adapt and move forward. They do not necessarily wish to keep the status quo, but they want to be properly involved and to tap into their vast experience in shaping a sensible way forward.

Louise Ellman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He played an active part in drafting our proposals, and I certainly agree with what he says. Indeed, our Committee is asking the Government not just to withdraw their current proposals, but to introduce alternatives and, in doing so, to consider the alternative proposals that have been submitted by coastguard officers across the country.
	I should like to refer now to the proposals on the withdrawal of funding for emergency towing vessels—the tugs that are there to prevent major pollution incidents.
	That decision for change was made against the findings of an independent risk assessment, and we consider it unwise and short-sighted; it is quite literally inviting disaster. Our evidence strongly suggests that no suitable commercial alternative exists to replace the current arrangements. We urge the Government to reverse their decision to terminate the provision of emergency towing vehicles by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, although we welcome efforts to find alternative sources of funding to help to fund such procedures.
	The third part of the Government’s proposals concerns the withdrawal of Government financial support for the firefighting service at sea—the maritime incident response group, which is funded by the Government and firefighting authorities. We are extremely concerned that the Government have withdrawn their funding from that service and appear to expect the local fire and rescue authorities to fund it themselves. It is a national firefighting service, and we consider it unreasonable to expect the local fire services to fund it, particularly at this time of financial constraint. Our concern is that, if the burden was put entirely on the local fire and rescue authorities, that excellent service would cease to exist. The service is extremely important; not only is it to do with firefighting, but it is deals with chemical hazards. I ask the Government to remember how important that is and what the consequences of withdrawing the service could be.
	Taken together, the proposed changes to the coastguard service, with the drastic closure of coastguard co-ordination centres and the possible loss of emergency towing vehicles and the maritime incident response group, represent a significant restructuring of the country’s marine search and rescue and accident and pollution prevention capabilities. It is deeply regrettable that the Department for Transport announced all three sets of proposals with no prior consultation whatsoever and did not consider their combined impact on safety. Although this cross-party Committee recognises the pressure on the Government to make financial savings and the need to modernise and use new technology, we simply cannot support proposals that reduce maritime safety in that way.

Albert Owen: Does my hon. Friend agree that any future proposal should be made in an oral statement to the House, so that Members on both sides have an opportunity to ask questions on that initial statement?

Louise Ellman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. New proposals should enable the widest possible consultation, including the involvement of hon. Members.
	I call on the Government to withdraw their proposals and to produce alternatives that address the concerns that we have identified. I present the report to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Congenital Cardiac Services for Children

Stuart Andrew: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the review led by the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts into the reconfiguration of children’s heart surgery; welcomes its aim of establishing a more sustainable provision of congenital cardiac services in England which has strong support from professional associations and patient groups; notes that concerns have been expressed during consultation on the proposals; calls on the review to take full account of accurate assessed travel and population projections, the views of ethnic minority communities affected, evidence supporting the co-location of children’s services, and the need for patients and their families to access convenient services; and therefore calls on the Joint Committee not to restrict itself to the four options outlined in the review but instead to consider further options in making its final recommendations.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us the opportunity to hold this valuable debate. I apologise to the Committee and the Clerks for taking so long to table the motion, but I feel passionate that it is right to get a motion that has the effect that we want. I have probably learned more this week than in the past year, and if I have not got it right, I am sorry. I also thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Winchester (Mr Brine), who have helped me through the past week.
	This debate is timely, as the consultation by the review of children’s heart surgery around the country will come to an end soon. I completely agree with and support the professionals and patients who say that the review of congenital cardiac services is needed. Of course, we all want what is best for our children, and we want the best centres in the world. It is absolutely right and necessary that we learn from past mistakes in other units, but serious concerns about the process have been raised with me by clinicians and parents. I believe that it is my duty and that of others to scrutinise the review if we feel that there are problems.
	There have been accusations that this has been turned into a political campaign. I stress that I have been keen not to make this a political campaign, and I have been incredibly impressed by the cross-party support of the Members from across the country who have been helping us. We will hear from other Members from all over the country—the debate is not just about the unit in Leeds—but I want to highlight the fact that my concerns relate to the review and not just to one centre. Although I will naturally refer to Leeds to highlight examples, I am sure that other Members will highlight similar problems with the review and relate them to their units. I am keen that the campaign does not set one centre against another, but that they are all considered equally.
	I want first to deal with what I perceive as the flaws in the review. That is my main concern. From speaking to patients and families, I know that that has made them lose confidence in the review. We would all agree that public confidence in the review is important. The review has stated that the objective is to have centres that perform 400 procedures a year. The first version of the pre-consultation business case showed that patients from Doncaster and Sheffield would travel to Birmingham. That is absolutely right and in line with advice from the Yorkshire and Humber specialised commissioners, but
	in version 2 and the consultation options, the flow had changed to Newcastle. I understand that that helps the Newcastle figures, but I and anyone else who knows the area would surely question the likelihood of that happening. Far more plausible is that people would go to Birmingham or Leicester. What happens to Newcastle then? In addition, one of the options—the 400 minimum procedures—is not even met. The JCPCT explains that that is due to new patient flows.
	At a number of centres, activity has increased in the past year. For example, Leeds is now doing 370 procedures a year, but in the pre-consultation assessment it was not afforded the same consideration as other centres that carry out similar numbers of procedures. Furthermore, the health impact assessment had not been completed before the final options were presented for consultation. The independent company undertaking that work said that this was not the usual approach taken in large reconfiguration proposals. That means that the public will have no access to the findings during the consultation period.
	An issue that affects the black and minority ethnic community is that until 24 May the consultation questionnaire was available only in English and Welsh. As a Welsh speaker, I approve of having a Welsh version, but it was not until 12 weeks after the consultation began that the questionnaire became available in other languages, leaving just five weeks for the community to respond. In Leeds, more than 20% of the patients come from the BME community, so this is an important issue that needs to be addressed.
	Finally, on the flaws, yesterday when the Safe and Sustainable team were here, we heard them say that co-location of services, in their view, meant anything up to 10 minutes away, yet the British Congenital Cardiac Association issued a statement on 18 February 2011, two days after the release of the business case, to clarify its professional view of the importance of co-location. I believe this demonstrates the BCCA’s dissatisfaction with the review’s interpretation of co-location.

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend refers to a meeting of the steering group with MPs yesterday. Does he agree that it was a slightly strange meeting and that there was a significant degree of defensiveness on the part of the steering group?

Stuart Andrew: That is a very good description of the meeting. I agree with my hon. Friend. If nothing else, it is good that this debate got the review board to come to Parliament and speak to MPs so that we could express our concerns.
	On the case for Leeds specifically, as I said a moment ago, co-location of services is considered crucial by the BCCA. In Leeds we have one of the largest children’s hospitals in the country. A considerable amount of time has been spent bringing all the children’s services under one roof at Leeds General infirmary. The centre serves a population of 5.5 million. I cannot understand why the option has not been considered for Leeds when it has been considered for centres in Birmingham and Liverpool. Yorkshire has a growing population and a growing BME community. As I said, 20% of the patients come from that community. It is crucial that we take account of population numbers when considering the review.
	How we care for all those families is also important. When I worked at Martin House children’s hospice, it was not just the care of the poorly child, but the care of the whole family, that was important. When people have a very poorly child, they want their family to be together. It has been said that parents will travel anywhere. Of course they will, but does that mean that we should make them travel when there could be alternatives?
	The Yorkshire and Humber congenital cardiac network board has a well-established network model, is regarded as an exemplar in this country and is held in high regard across the region by both the professionals and the patients involved in the service. Although this was recognised by Sir Ian Kennedy’s expert panel and Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust was awarded the maximum score for networks in that assessment, the JCPCT, as part of the scoring of options for future configuration of centres, gave all potential networks the same score. It is unclear why a proven track record of delivering an exemplary network model was not considered an important factor in the ability to deliver this across a larger population and greater geographical spread in the future.
	On the requirement for a minimum of 400 operations, Leeds delivered 316 cardiac operations in the 0 to 16-year-old group in 2009-10 and 372 in 2010-11. The process of recruiting a fourth surgeon is under way. By the time the review’s recommendations are implemented, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust will deliver the minimum number of operations, which is 400, and it will have the minimum number of surgeons, which is four, that the standards require from within the current population base. Equally, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust has provided detailed information to the Safe and Sustainable team for expansion of the current service, should it be required to deliver a change in capacity to support patients from a centre that does not get designation.
	The review said yesterday that the debate is not about current services. It is about what will be provided in the future. The figures that I have cited show that Leeds’ case for being a centre caring for more than 400 patients is strong. Many patients and particularly clinicians have pointed out to me that it seems odd that we are having a review of children’s heart services without referring to adult services. Many of those patients will be the same: those children will grow up, and the doctors who perform the operations are often the same people caring for both groups, so why are we not looking at adult services now? It has been suggested that that review should come later, but if we have made decisions about children’s heart surgery, surely we have pre-empted what might happen in the future.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Going slightly further on his last point, does he realise that if those surgeons are no longer there, they will not be able to perform operations on adults? Adult surgery would be very detrimentally affected.

Stuart Andrew: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is right; if we have a review of children’s cardiac services, surely we must consider what will happen to adult services. We should be talking about that now.
	I could go on much longer and talk about the cases of various parents whom I have met, but I know that other hon. Members will do that, probably far more eloquently
	than I could. I am keen that the motion is supported because I want it to send a clear message to the review team that we are asking it to consider all the points that will be made today and all the points that have been made by the campaigns across the country. It was a privilege to go to Downing street the other day with children, patients and clinicians from the Leeds centre to present a petition of more than 500,000 names. That is a significant petition by anybody’s standards and a credit to that campaign.
	I am concerned that after consideration of the consultation responses, it will be difficult to respond to all the evidence by pigeon-holing them into the four options in the review. That is why our motion today urges the joint committee not to restrict itself to those four options and instead to think outside the box, as they say. Let us look at a different proposal that delivers the services and the quality that we want and also takes account of all the responses that we have received.
	Finally, I want to pay a personal tribute to all the families and campaigners, especially in Yorkshire and the Humber. In all the campaigning that I have ever done, I have never seen such a well-organised and dedicated campaign. The subject is sometimes emotional, but the responses that have come from patients across Yorkshire shows that there can be an alternative that delivers the services that we want. I hope the House will support the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. As hon. Members can see, this is a popular debate. There is, therefore, a six-minute limit on contributions.

Andrew Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on introducing the motion and arguing his case so powerfully. The debate shows the value of Back Bench-initiated topics, which has enabled the House to speak out on an issue of enormous concern to the public, as demonstrated by the petition he referred to and by the Southern Daily Echopetition of nearly 250,000 signatures that was taken to Downing street earlier this week in support of the Southampton centre, which is mainly what I want to speak about. I will make just a few key points, as many Members wish to speak.
	First, I want to praise the work done in the existing centres, including the John Radcliffe hospital in my constituency, which commands fantastic support from the parents of children who have been treated there. The Young Hearts organisation, which was set up to support parents of children with heart conditions in Oxfordshire, has been leading a great campaign, rightly paying moving tributes to the skill and dedication of surgeons, doctors, nurses and whole medical teams who have saved children’s lives and to whom we all owe a debt of thanks.
	Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman noted, a key concern in the debate, and in considering the Safe and Sustainable review, must be to secure the best possible treatments and outcomes for children with congenital and other heart conditions. We must be guided by medical and research expertise, which few of us in this place are in a position to second-guess. I am therefore mindful of the
	joint statement by the Royal College of Surgeons and the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery, in which they strongly support the concentration of treatment centres. They state:
	“England has the right number of heart surgeons treating rare heart conditions in children, but we do know that they are thinly spread over too many units. A better service would be provided if this expertise were condensed in fewer units with the critical number of staff to support each other, disseminate new techniques and train the next generation of specialists.”
	They believe that the proposals
	“will result in rapid and significant improvement in treatment for some of the most vulnerable patients treated by the NHS.”
	We should give great weight to that unequivocal statement.
	The joint statement went on to suggest—this brings me to my third point—that:
	“The benefits of undertaking this change, however, need to be balanced against longer journeys for some families”.
	That, along with quality, is a matter of great concern on both sides of the House, and certainly in Oxfordshire. It was also stressed by the Oxfordshire joint health overview and scrutiny committee and the Young Hearts campaign in relation to the implications for patients in our area if any option other than option B, which is to retain the centre at the Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust, is chosen. As today’s Oxford Mail editorial states:
	“If Southampton loses out in the Government shake up of children’s heart services, then so does Oxford.”
	The benefits of this option, and in particular of retaining the Southampton centre, lie not only in the fact that the Kennedy review ranks Southampton highest in the country outside London for quality, but that the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust has developed a joint network of care with Southampton, enabling local children who have surgery in Southampton to receive follow-up care and support services in the excellent facilities at the Oxford children’s hospital and to be able to progress as they grow older to the Oxford heart centre, thereby maintaining continuity of care, which the hon. Gentleman rightly said was so important in the relationship between children’s services and adult services. I very much hope that this south of England congenital heart network, with Southampton and Oxford working closely together, will be part of the option that is finally chosen.
	That network does not figure in the present options, but I welcome the news in today’s briefing from Safe and Sustainable that a specialist team is examining it. The need for this flexibility is a key reason why I support the call in the motion for the joint committee not to restrict itself narrowly to the options set out in the original review. As Young Hearts has pointed out, it is important to consider the children needing paediatric cardiac services who were not born with a heart defect but who have suffered a virus or accident requiring cardiac treatment. The Oxford-Southampton partnership will retain ready access to the skills and facilities needed for that care.
	That form of partnership network, with collaboration between a surgical centre and another cardiac care centre, offers a good model for other parts of the country. It enables us to ensure that children have the benefit of both the critical mass of surgery, which surgeons advise can significantly and rapidly improve treatment, and more convenient access to related services and continuing care nearer their homes. Surely that is
	the outcome that we all want. I very much hope that the review and the Government will take it forward, with the Southampton-Oxford partnership being the best way to retain high-quality and accessible services for central southern England.

Stephen Dorrell: Like the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on introducing the motion, which is of huge importance to my constituents and to the national health service. In contributing to the debate, I wear two hats. First, I represent the village of Glenfield. Glenfield hospital is actually in the neighbouring constituency of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), but it takes its name from the village in my constituency. Secondly, I am Chair of the Health Committee. The Committee has not approached the subject specifically, because we have been looking at a number of other matters, but we have so far published two reports on commissioning, which is precisely at the heart of today’s debate.
	In a sense, I personify the conflict that every Member feels between the constituency interest and the national interest, and in this case I do so in a particularly dramatic form, as one of the surgical units involved is closely associated with my constituency. My first point is that that conflict exists for all Members. We are of course here to represent our constituents’ interests, but I argue that we are here first and foremost as Members of a national Parliament and should seek, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey recognises, the right answer for all NHS patients, not simply for a particular local interest.

Chris Bryant: I wish to make a very small point because the right hon. Gentleman used the word “national”. Many of the services we are considering are also used by Welsh and Scottish constituents, so it is important to ensure that there is that communication between the different elements.

Stephen Dorrell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said that this is not a political issue, by which he meant that it is not a party political issue. That is exactly right, but issues can be political without being party political. It is important that the House, in approaching the subject, makes it clear that the issue should ultimately be resolved according to clinical standards, not as a form of political bartering, whether party political or through the general representation of local interests.
	I am in the happy situation, personifying, as I do, the conflict between local and national interests, that the specialist group has recommended a solution that accords with my constituents’ views, but I think that in approaching the subject it is important to be clear about the ladder of interest: we should approach this from the point of view of national standards for the service delivery. We of course should represent the views of our constituents, but we should be clear that the national view should come first.
	Writing in The Timestoday, Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, states:
	“Intellectually, the case for change is compelling and widely accepted. Sadly, the realpolitik is that the closer we get to a
	solution, the more personal, professional and political interests conspire to perpetuate mediocrity and inhibit the pursuit of excellence…For too long this has been filed in the ‘too difficult’ box. Time is running out.”
	Those words should ring loud in our ears as we debate the subject this afternoon.
	We should recognise that the whole issue of child heart surgery has form in the history of the national health service. It is now over a decade since Sir Ian Kennedy published his review of circumstances that illustrate what can go tragically wrong when things are allowed to drift on and when real issues are not addressed. Although I am of course here as a Member representing my constituents’ interests, I think that the key priority for the House this afternoon is to support the principle that this issue must be decided in the interests of the children who are the patients and who will become the adult patients, and in a way that satisfies the key driver of the pursuit of excellence in clinical standards.
	I welcome the fact that the previous Government set up the review to ensure that we addressed the issues that had been left to drift on for too long since the Bristol heart review a decade ago, and I wholeheartedly endorse the view, expressed by Sir Bruce in today’s Times, that the time to act is now.
	As a local MP, I wonder what the effect is on Leicester of this drive to a decision. I have already referred to the fact that I am not in an uncomfortable position, because on page 93 the review states:
	“Option 2”—
	which became option A—
	“is viable as it is consistently the highest scoring potential option.”
	The review’s recommendation is that the process go ahead based on option A, and that is convenient from the point of view of the person arguing the case that I do, but I conclude that if anyone wants to argue for an alternative outcome, it behoves them, particularly in view of the history of this issue in the national health service, to present a coherent, whole argument for how their solution represents a better solution for the patients of those services, while reflecting, of course, the local interest of the people we are elected to represent.

Nick Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) in debate, something that I have not done for 15 years in this place, and as ever I agree with the broad thrust of what he has said. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate about the Safe and Sustainable review. I want to make two points about the case for the review itself and the case for children’s cardiac care at the Freeman hospital in my constituency.
	The review of paediatric cardiac services in England and Wales was instigated in 2008 under the previous Government. It was instigated not by them, not by the civil service but by the health care professionals themselves. There were two previous reviews, in 2000 and 2003, recommending the establishment of fewer, larger cardiac surgical centres; in 2006, a national workshop of experts concluded that the current configuration was unsustainable; in 2007, the Royal College of Surgeons called for the concentration of surgical expertise in fewer, larger surgical centres.
	The 2008 exercise has been carried out on behalf of the 10 specialised commissioning groups in England and their primary care trusts. The clinical case for the exercise is pretty formidable: clinical outcomes are better at high-volume centres; it is undesirable that surgical expertise is spread too thinly, because apart from anything else it mitigates against the provision of 24-hour surgical cover; the increasing complexity of what can be achieved argues for fewer specialist centres; it is easier for fewer units with larger case loads to retain surgeons and to develop expertise; and strong leadership from surgical centres underpins non-surgical cardiology care in local hospitals.

Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nick Brown: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not.
	There is strong clinical support for the review. The relevant royal colleges have all endorsed it; the available research evidence underpins it; and all 10 specialised commissioning groups and their local primary care trusts committed themselves to it at the outset. That seems to be a pretty formidable case.
	I am the constituency Member for the Freeman hospital in Newcastle upon Tyne, and on 10 June I visited its paediatric surgery unit. I never cease to be impressed by the care, kindness and surgical skill that the national health service provides. It is very moving to see very young children whose lives are literally being saved, and to meet youngsters who, 20 years ago, would not have had a chance of life. The unit at the Freeman is one of two children’s heart transplant units in England, the other being Great Ormond Street in London, and of course the unit benefits enormously from its link with the internationally renowned adult cardiac services on the same site.
	The expertise at the Freeman has been built up over decades. The first successful child heart transplant in the UK was carried out there 20 years ago, and I am happy to tell the House that the young lady is alive and well, living and working on Tyneside.
	Clinical outcomes at the children’s heart unit at the Freeman are excellent. On my visit, I saw artificial ventricular device systems, known as Berlin hearts, attached to very young patients, but, if the unit closed, that pioneering work would move, probably to Birmingham, leaving the whole of the north without provision. There are similar issues with the extra corporeal membrane oxygenation services currently provided at the hospital. The children’s heart unit really is a national resource, with an international reputation.
	No one can doubt the commitment of the senior management and of the trust board to the pioneering children’s cardiac work at the Freeman. The trust has invested in services and, pending the outcome of the review, has a further investment programme ready to go. The review team, in its assessment, has weighted quality, sustainability and deliverability more heavily than access and travel, and that seems to me to be the right prioritisation.
	I want to make two final points. Although this is an England and Wales review, the people of Scotland could also be affected by the outcome, certainly as far
	as nationally commissioned services are concerned. As well as with Scotland, the Freeman hospital has well established connections with Northern Ireland and with the Republic of Ireland, and although I recognise that this was not formally part of the review team’s remit, I welcome its decision to invite observers from Scotland and Northern Ireland to its deliberations.
	My final point echoes the point that the right hon. Member for Charnwood, the Health Committee Chair made. I welcome the effort made by the review team and its sponsors to meet MPs yesterday in the House. They made an impressive case for the review itself, and for the thorough and detailed way they have gone about it. We are constituency representatives, each trying to do our best for the communities we represent. Having said that, I believe we should think very carefully before trying to impose our political judgments—based on support for the constituencies that we represent—over the judgments of the health care professionals who have studied the issues in detail and spoken so clearly about the clinical priorities involved for the whole country.

Greg Hands: I very much support the principle that lies behind the review—that we need larger, more sustainable centres with the same overall number of specialists throughout the country. That is why charity and campaign groups, such as the Children’s Heart Federation and Little Hearts Matter, back the change.
	I recognise that people will have to travel further as a consequence, and that will sometimes be extremely difficult, for families in particular, but the choice is between people travelling further and getting the best outcome for their child, and people having a shorter distance to travel but perhaps compromising the outcomes that can be achieved. The clinical evidence is unambiguous: travelling further means that some children will live who would otherwise die. On that basis—the whole basis behind the review—we have to bite the bullet and make change.
	I support the principle of fewer, larger units, but the experience of Royal Brompton hospital in my constituency has made me question the process that is being used to make individual decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) pointed out, the matter needs to be depoliticised from the outset. The review is taking place at arm’s length from the Government. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) said, it was set up under the previous Government and is being administered by a body called the joint committee of primary care trusts, which I assume is up for abolition.
	Phase 1 of the assessment process involved ranking all the existing units on core standards, sustainability, facilities and so on. Great care was taken, and that makes the next phases all the more mystifying. Out of the 11 units ranked, the Royal Brompton came joint fourth, on 464 points. Of the 11 units assessed, only two had the maximum number of four surgeons—the Royal Brompton and Great Ormond Street. In terms of the number of procedures undertaken each year, the Royal Brompton came fourth highest of all. In each of the three objective criteria, the Royal Brompton was in the top four nationally. I therefore asked the joint committee
	of PCTs this question: why bother to rank all the units only then to stipulate that one of the top four has to close whatever else happens? That is the consequence of the decision arbitrarily to rule out keeping three centres open in London. One of the top four units in the country is to be axed, no matter its size and no matter its quality, due merely to its location. That flies in the face of the starting point of the review—that it was all about clinical outcomes, not geography.
	The Royal Brompton has four specialist surgeons who perform 520 operations, including 453 children’s heart operations, per year. It has a fantastic safety record, with an aggregate mortality rate of 0.94 of 1%—less than half the national average of 2%. Why, then, when it is already a model example of what the review wants to create, does the consultation, in all the options available, decree that it must close? The joint committee of PCTs is claiming that it has an open mind, but in reality it is consulting on four options, all of which would shut the unit at the Royal Brompton.
	The knock-on effects on services elsewhere in the trust would be considerable, especially on children with cystic fibrosis, of whom there are 300 in the country. The future of provision for those children would be extremely unclear. It is also unclear what capacity the remaining two hospitals in London would have to take on—

Simon Burns: I will speak with great care because—my hon. Friend is as aware of this as I am—of the possible judicial review with regard to the Royal Brompton. I would like to say, though, as I think it may help him, that no decisions have yet been made. The consultation literature specifically asks consultees for their views on how many centres it is best to have in London—two or three. If they agree that two is optimal, they are asked to state which two they prefer, including the Royal Brompton. Even though it is not included in any of the pillars, people who are taking part in the consultation process can argue its case, and it will be considered because the JCPCT is taking a flexible approach to the consultation process.

Greg Hands: I welcome that intervention from the Minister. He is right that it is open to the consultation to consider it, as it says on the last page of the consultation document, but the document was contradictory on this point in the first place. On page 84, it says:
	“London requires at least 2 centres due to the size of the population it covers”,
	but in a footnote on page 93 it still imposes the arbitrary limit of two centres at most.
	The joint committee has belatedly recognised a problem. Under pressure, it announced at the beginning of May that an expert panel would be established to review the wider impact on other services if cardiac paediatrics were to close. That was welcome, but it has continued to press ahead with the original consultation and names for the new panel were not proposed until this week. By the time the new panel reports in August, the consultation will have closed. What happens if its response reflects the serious concerns about a whole series of national services? Having consulted on options A, B, C and D, it can hardly go for an option E that no one was asked about. It would then probably have to re-consult.
	I became the MP for the Royal Brompton in May last year, although, as the neighbouring MP previously, I have been very familiar with its work for many years. Its previous MP, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), also strongly supports its campaign to fight the proposal. I have visited the hospital three times in the past year. The proposal to end its cardiac paediatrics has been brought to the attention of parliamentary colleagues across all parties and across large parts of London, the south-east and East Anglia. A huge petition has been gathered, signed by more than 30,000 people, and tomorrow we are delivering it to No. 10. I have written at length and in detail to the Secretary of State on the matter, and he helpfully replied—I think this was confirmed by the Minister—that
	“no decisions have yet been made”,
	including on the number of units to be located in London. That is a cause for encouragement.
	I repeat that I support the aims of the review, but the consultation has been badly flawed. Three units in London, perhaps restructured, should have been an option, and the knock-on effects of closing services should have been considered. The case must now be re-examined. The Royal Brompton is good enough, large enough and loved enough to survive.

Jonathan Ashworth: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and other members of the Backbench Business Committee on securing this timely debate.
	When I delivered my maiden speech in the Chamber two weeks ago I mentioned my support for the campaign to maintain the children’s heart unit at Glenfield hospital, which, as the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), said, is in the constituency of my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). The campaign is supported by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), as well as by many Members from across the county, if not the east midlands as a whole. It is right that this does not become a party political matter.
	Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West and I attended the public consultation event on Glenfield at the Walkers stadium in my constituency attended by hundreds of concerned parents, dedicated staff and local people, not only from Leicester but beyond the east midlands. Many of those people have never used the unit at Glenfield and, one hopes, will never need to use it, but they were all convinced of the logic of maintaining it. We heard moving stories from parents telling us how outstanding was the quality of care provided to their children. We heard testimonies from many of the staff at Glenfield, who described in remarkable detail the quality of the care that they provide and how they intend to continue to improve it.
	We also heard many people, particularly members of the Asian community, express frustration, if not anger, about the fact that Glenfield features in only one option—option A. Many Members will know that Leicester has a very diverse population. Evidence shows that there is a high prevalence of heart disease in Asian communities, and some of my constituents from those communities
	are particularly concerned that Leicester features in only one option. In the past few weeks, people from mosques, gurdwaras, Hindu temples and the Federation of Muslim Organisations have been very vocal about this.
	I want to focus my remarks on something that is unique and specific to Glenfield: our world-class ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—service. An ECMO machine—I have to concede that I am far from an expert on these things, so Members may want to correct me—rests the heart and/or lungs of a patient waiting for recovery. I have been told by many at Glenfield that this procedure was pioneered there 20 years ago. Today, Glenfield has more than 10 machines, and it is no exaggeration to describe it as a world-leading centre in this field. Glenfield is the only centre in the country that provides ECMO for patients of all ages, from newborns to adults. Its expertise has been recognised on many occasions. For example, last year 110 adults were treated during the swine flu outbreak at Glenfield’s ECMO centre.
	How is that relevant to the future of the children’s heart unit? Quite simply, the ECMO service is provided by the same staff who work in the congenital heart centre. Therefore, if that centre closes, Glenfield will lose its ECMO service as well. Of course, the ECMO service could go to Birmingham, as is mooted in the consultation, but that rather misses the point. Many of the staff working at Leicester’s ECMO centre have done so for nearly 20 years. Their combined expertise has helped to make Glenfield’s ECMO unit the world-class facility it is today. Many of my constituents are concerned that it would be years before an ECMO unit could be re-established elsewhere with the same level of competence. Training new staff to have the level of expertise offered at Glenfield could take up to 10 years. That is why many people in my constituency feel that keeping this national service is vital. Giles Peek, a consultant paediatric heart surgeon, told the Leicester Mercury:
	“We use it not just after surgery but also to stabilise children and to stop them dying before surgery. We are almost always full and often take children from other hospitals… Our role at Glenfield as national reference centre for this treatment is important and underestimated.”
	Although I understand that this is a consultation and that it is right that these decisions are made by clinicians and not politicians, I hope that the joint committee will consider further options because of the expertise at our ECMO centre. Many of my constituents would be grateful if the Minister reflected on the national implications of Glenfield losing its ECMO centre and, at an appropriate time, made some remarks about that.

Jason McCartney: I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for his hard work, along with other colleagues, in securing this Back-Bench debate.
	I will speak on behalf of the Leeds children’s heart surgery unit, which serves the whole of Yorkshire. I was fortunate enough to visit the unit in November. I met its wonderful staff and surgeons, and spoke to many parents and some of the patients. Over the next couple of hours, we will hear a lot of intricate detail, just as we have already. There will be many statistics, facts and figures. I want to give a few facts and figures of my own. Half a
	million names were on the petition to save the Leeds unit, which we delivered to No.10 Downing street on Tuesday. That is the biggest petition ever raised in Yorkshire, and we can be very proud about that. The two-hour radius around the Leeds heart surgery unit reaches 14.5 million people. Including check-up appointments, the unit sees 10,000 children annually, and it performs 340 operations.

Julian Smith: As well as the number of operations performed at Leeds, will my hon. Friend talk about the rurality of many of the areas it serves? Skipton and Ripon is the most rural part of North Yorkshire. I have received many representations from my constituents about the issue of distance that there will be if Leeds does not survive.

Jason McCartney: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of those 14.5 million people are in rural areas, such as his North Yorkshire constituency. I will touch on that issue in relation to my Colne Valley constituency shortly.
	I want to say a few words about the inconsistencies in the options. The Safe and Sustainable review has said consistently that centres should perform a minimum of 400 operations a year, and ideally 500. However, under option B, Bristol and Southampton would fail to achieve that number. The review’s projected figures show that they would perform 360 and 382 operations respectively. During the meeting in Leeds, campaigners were told that it was not viable to have three centres in the north of England because the figures would be 347 for Leeds and 381 for Newcastle. If option B is viable, why is it not viable to have three centres in the north of England? Would not a solution be to keep Leeds and Newcastle open, and to give them two years in which to achieve all the standards set out by the review?

Steve Brine: That is precisely why the motion calls on the JCPCT to show maximum flexibility and not to restrict itself to the four options. The answer could be, “Yes we can.”

Jason McCartney: I agree that that is what we are looking for. The idea behind the motion is to ask for more flexibility.
	I have talked about statistics and about the 500,000 names on the petition, but there are three compelling reasons why I am speaking in this debate—or perhaps I should say three young reasons. Those three young reasons all happen to be at one school in my Colne Valley constituency. I met three pupils at Linthwaite Clough school near Huddersfield, who back the campaign to save Yorkshire’s only children’s heart surgery unit because they owe their lives to it. George Sutcliffe is a 12-year-old who uses a wheelchair six days a week and attends the heart surgery unit in Leeds about once a month. Ben Pogson, who is 10, and Joel Bearder, who is just four, both underwent major heart surgery at the unit. Ben and Joel’s mums, Sam and Gaynor, have played leading roles in the campaign to save the unit, along with many others, and I praise their contributions. As well as those three pupils, one of the teachers at the school owes his life to the skill of the medical staff in Leeds. Richard Quarmby, a learning mentor at the school who will start his teacher training in September, had major surgery for his congenital heart condition at the Leeds heart surgery unit.
	Those people owe their lives to the unit. They cite its wonderful staff and its proximity to Huddersfield as crucial. It takes less than an hour to get there. The unit gives fantastic family support and there is accommodation for parents if needed. As a result of George, Ben and Joel’s treatment at the unit, the Linthwaite Clough school council has decided to support it as its annual chosen charity. Already, it has organised a series of fundraisers, including a colourful, cheerful day. For the reasons I have given, I think that the Safe and Sustainable review should be renamed the safe, sustainable and supporting families review.
	Finally, on behalf of Ben, Joel, George and many others, I shall support the motion.

George Mudie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on the hard work he has put in to secure this debate. I compliment him on the sensitivity with which he phrased his contribution. I hope that that will allow the Government Whips to stay out of the decision and allow Members to get what we seek, which is not interference in clinical observations, but a review of how this is being carried out geographically.
	The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) was more sanguine than I am about the involvement of Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director. I found his article in The Times this morning ill-timed, coming on the morning of a debate, when feelings are running high. I do not find it acceptable for him to say that anyone who opposes his view is “disingenuous” and that
	“political interests conspire to perpetuate mediocrity and inhibit the pursuit of excellence.”
	I find that offensive. Nobody in the Chamber argues with the clinical objectives. I find it unacceptable that some youngsters who are taken to centres for medical treatment get excellent treatment and that others get less than excellent treatment. I find it sensible and laudable that we should rationalise those centres to build up experience and techniques, and so that there are more people to share their experiences.
	The right hon. Member for Charnwood said that we should not oppose the proposal because it is right clinically. He told us not to think of our own hospitals, but to think nationally. “Nationally”, however, also means “regionally”. The point that has not been made is that, while the Chamber should accept the clinical arguments, equality of access is also important. That is what is being said by most of the opponents of the proposals, and they are not being disingenuous. For instance, in the Newcastle versus Leeds argument, it would not be acceptable for me to argue in favour of the Leeds case on the basis that Leeds children should not have to travel 100 miles to Newcastle, because if we won our case, Newcastle children would have to travel 100 miles to Leeds. If it is wrong for us, it is wrong for them.
	If the rationalisation, which we accept, takes place properly—and this is where the Minister comes in—there will be an underlay of fairness and equality of access. We have a National Theatre in London, but it is not a National Theatre for Yorkshire. It is nice for Hampstead, but it is not very good for Seacroft in Leeds.

Stephen Dorrell: I think that the hon. Gentleman slightly misrepresented what I said. I did not say, “You must accept it”, or “Take it or leave it”. I said that those who wished to argue for a different approach must argue for the whole approach, and not for a sectional interest.

George Mudie: I entirely accept that, and I did not intend to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had said anything different. My point is that, while the clinical case for a rationalisation is unarguable, equality of access is as important a consideration as any. Excellent treatment must not be available to only a certain number of people.

Greg Mulholland: We all accept the clinical premise of the review, but is it not incredibly arrogant for anyone to suggest that it cannot be fallible? There are obvious flaws in it. Many clinicians themselves say that it is flawed.

George Mudie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that the same case was made by the right hon. Member for Charnwood. We may prevaricate for one reason or another, but sometimes it may be necessary to make a decision even when we think that it is not perfect, and I think that this is an instance of that. If the life of a child is involved, we must make a decision.
	If we continue to challenge the clinical aspect of the review, we will fall into the trap of allowing a bad situation to continue. The case for change has been proved, and, while we may differ on how that change should be made, what is important is for us to express the view—and I should like to see it challenged—that there should be equality of access. Each region should ensure that every part of it has equality of access where possible, although that will involve some difficulty if Yorkshire is lumped together with the north-east.
	In the last year I have had to move from my constituency office, which was in the centre of the constituency. I was offered cheaper, perhaps even better, accommodation in the outer part, but I felt that it would be unfair on the other wards for me to move away from the centre. If option 4 is either Leeds or Newcastle, I think that that is unfair on both. I do not want to close Newcastle, and Newcastle does not want to close Leeds. Locating provision sensibly in each region is important, but the House should also recognise, as it rarely does, that the country has some corners in which there is no equality of access in any respect. Those in Newcastle, in the top corner, and those in Cornwall, in the bottom corner, do not have access to many facilities that are accessible to people in the midlands, in Yorkshire and, above all, in London.
	I believe that the House should accept the motion, and that the review team should forget about the clinical arguments and produce a template that proves to every Member that the excellent services that we should be demanding for children’s care will be shared equally around the country. The team should give some real, positive, out-of-the-box thought to how to deal with areas that generally lose out.

Greg Mulholland: It is a pleasure to follow my Leeds colleagues, and it is a pleasure to work with all the Leeds and Yorkshire and
	Humber Members of Parliament throughout the House in support of the inspiring campaign to save the Leeds unit. I too was proud to be there to help present that remarkable petition. Nearly half a million people in the region have spoken out in an attempt to save the unit. When I visited it, I had the same experience as other Members have had when visiting their local units. I found it incredibly moving to meet those babies and children and their families, while also being conscious that I was walking into a centre of excellence. It benefits from a genuine co-location of services, which is the gold standard that has been set, and 370 operations are already being performed there—very close to the 400 figure.

Kevan Jones: I note the size of the petition, but as a former Defence Minister responsible for defence medical services I faced similar petitions when the Ministry of Defence was concentrating military health care at University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, which is now a centre of excellence not just in this country but internationally. Although petitions are valuable, clinical outcomes must be at the forefront of any decision, and the MOD’s decision to concentrate defence medical services at Birmingham was the right one.

Greg Mulholland: It would be very worrying if the extraordinarily overwhelming views expressed by people were ignored, but of course the clinical view is vital, and, as I have said, many clinicians have a problem with the flaws—clinical flaws—in the review.

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend mentioned the co-location of services. As I said in my speech, Leeds has spent considerable time ensuring that all children’s services are under one roof. If we lost the heart unit there, might not other services be affected as well?

Greg Mulholland: I have not yet had a chance to congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has co-ordinated our campaign. It has been a pleasure to work with him so closely, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and other colleagues. He is right: one of those serious flaws is the failure to consider the impact on adult heart services, which would be a huge problem.
	There is real concern out there, as has been demonstrated not only by the petition in Yorkshire and petitions in other parts of the country, but by the views expressed by many respected practising and retired clinicians. The concern about the closures is understandable, but there is also concern about the review itself. There is concern about the process, about the conclusions reached so far, about the lack of consistency in the recommendations, about the lack of logic in relation to the premise of the review, and, I am sorry to say, about a lack of impartiality.
	That is why it is right for the House to have an opportunity to express that concern on behalf of all the areas concerned, and why it is fitting that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), is present. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with us, and I urge Members in all parts of the House to support the motion, so that we can address the concern that has been expressed outside and inside the House by considering the possibility of other configurations.
	I wish to echo three points that have been made about the wonderful Leeds unit. The first is about the co-location of services. The unit is a case of true co-location, which is what the British Congenital Cardiac Association has called “gold standard” care. Leeds is currently one of only two hospitals shown in the review to have such a type and level of service. Mr Joe Mellor, a consultant anaesthetist at Leeds, says:
	“What is particularly upsetting about the proposals is that our patients from Yorkshire would leave the Leeds unit and have to travel to Newcastle or Leicester. Leeds has centralised all its children’s services onto one site. Neither Newcastle nor Leicester have come close to achieving this. Congenital cardiac surgery is a very complicated form of medical treatment. If in Leeds we encounter a problem where the child needs the help of an intestinal surgeon, or a neurosurgeon, or need renal therapy, or a host of other possible therapy, then we get it immediately in our own children’s hospital.”
	Jonathan Darling, a consultant paediatrician at the Leeds General infirmary, states:
	“To lose heart surgery from the Leeds Children’s hospital would be a huge blow, especially when we have just centralised services precisely to realise the benefits of having all paediatric services co-located on one site. The Review process does not seem to give sufficient weighting to this true co-location.”
	I am afraid that it simply has not done so, which is worrying and quite extraordinary.
	The second point that I wish to make is on the issue of population, which colleagues from the region have already raised. It simply makes no sense to close a wonderful unit that is already performing almost the number of operations that it must, when there are so many people in the area and the population is growing. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) when I say that of course we do not want to see the Newcastle unit close. We do not want to see any unit close, because this is about getting things right. However, I say to him and others that it would be absolutely perverse to close Leeds simply to enable Newcastle to perform a sufficient number of operations. If we stick to the number in the review, Newcastle can only perform that number of operations if Leeds closes. That is absurd.

George Mudie: The point I was making was that if we are to take the review’s point and place units strategically, the obvious place with a mass population is Leeds. However, I said that that would leave Newcastle out on a limb, and something has to be done about that. The case for Leeds is unchallengeable.

Greg Mulholland: Indeed, and we have to get the point across to colleagues in other areas that perhaps we have to challenge the premise of the review and some of its figures if we are to reach other recommendations.
	The third matter that I wish to mention, as the hon. Gentleman did, is travel. In the meeting yesterday with the review team, I was frankly dismayed by how little consideration was being given to the reality of ordinary working families and the effect that having to travel would have on them. I shall give a couple of examples. Johanne Walters, the mother of Emma, states that to them the change
	“would mean her…surgery will be undertaken miles away from home and nobody would be there to support me—no family no friends—and it is incredibly difficult being there 24/7 at your child’s bedside, even with this support”.
	Joanne and David Binns, whose son Oliver has been treated, have said:
	“Oliver is our only child, and I’m sure you can imagine how it turned our world upside down. But we knew that we had family and friends who could just pop in and make us some food at the end of a long day, bring us clean clothes, and just be there if we needed a chat. I can’t imagine how much extra pressure it would have been at this point to have to think about long distance travel and accommodation on top of everything else.”
	Matthew and Karen are the parents of Liam Hey, a constituent of mine who has become something of a celebrity. He is a wonderful young man who is being treated at Leeds. Karen has said:
	“My son would not be here if it wasn’t for the LGI. It would be too much of a trauma to transfer children to another place.”
	Travel has simply not received adequate consideration. It comes out top of the criteria that people give when we ask them, but it is not anywhere near the top of the list of the review’s considerations. That is wrong.
	We have to re-examine the situation. I am delighted that the House has had a chance to debate it today, and that Ministers have been so accommodating in enabling us to do so. I urge the House to support the motion. We should come back with some proposals that will really work for children and that we can all support.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. To accommodate more Members, I am reducing the time limit to five minutes. I hope that both Front Benchers will take into account the popularity of the debate and the need to get Back Benchers in when they make their contributions.

Pat Glass: I do not have a children’s heart unit in my constituency. I do not even have one close by. There are parents in my constituency who are 50 miles from the nearest unit, but they tell me that they do not care about that. They would travel to the ends of the earth to get access to the best provision. That is what matters to them, not having somewhere on their doorstep.

Stuart Andrew: I have to take issue with that. The parents I have spoken to are very concerned that they might have to travel. Of course they will travel as far as they have to, but if we can provide a service closer to their homes, should we not strive for that?

Pat Glass: They are saying that because they have a unit on their doorstep now. We do not all live in big cities, and some people have to travel a long way. Parents tell me that what they want is the best services, and even if they have to travel to get them, that is what comes first. Travel and access are issues to consider, but every parent who has contacted me has confirmed that the most important thing for them is that their child gets access to the best provision available, and to surgeons who carry out these complex operations a couple of times a week, not a couple of times a year. They tell me that they will go anywhere to ensure that their child gets the best chance of surviving and that their condition improves.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that in County Durham, the concentration of adult cardiac surgery and emergency care at the Freeman hospital and the James Cook university hospital, which was controversial when it happened, has improved not only care but the survival rates of individuals from County Durham? Even though there are hospitals in the county closer to some people, survival rates have gone up because of that concentration.

Pat Glass: Absolutely, and we need to appreciate why such moves are necessary. None of us wants another Bristol baby tragedy, and I think there is general agreement that we need changes in the organisation of services to drive up the quality of treatment and bring together specialist surgeons to work in larger teams.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Pat Glass: Practically everyone remains in agreement that those changes need to be made.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Pat Glass: The argument is simply about which units will specialise in surgery, even though all existing units will continue to offer ongoing cardiology care.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Pat Glass: I am not going to give way, no matter how much the hon. Gentleman hassles me. I can see that that is what he plans to do.
	Many local campaigns have been mounted, and they have been supported by local MPs fighting for their own units or fighting to delay decisions. I absolutely understand that, but the decisions have been put off before for many reasons, which I believe is to the detriment of patients.
	The decision should not be made on a political basis. Few of us in the House are qualified to judge the quality, sustainability and deliverability of clinical outcomes in children’s heart provision. On 7 June, when I questioned the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), on the matter, he gave me a categorical assurance that decisions would be
	“based on clinical outcomes, not political considerations.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 12.]
	I hope that he will keep his nerve in the face of sustained political lobbying.

Simon Burns: If it encourages or reassures the hon. Lady, I will give her that commitment again today.

Pat Glass: I thank the Minister.
	The Children’s Heart Foundation has advised me that the closer we get to a decision, the more difficult the political battle will become. In a bid to save surgery facilities in their areas, some parents and clinicians are asking MPs to stall progress towards a decision. Parents have been told that some units will close, when in fact even if surgery is centred elsewhere, local units will continue to provide specialist medical treatment on a “hubs and spokes” model. I believe that parents have been misled on some matters.
	These decisions are crucial to the future clinical outcomes and life chances of our children. The Minister has again today categorically assured me that they will be based on clinical outcomes only, and I thank him for that.

Andrew Turner: I shall confine my speech to issues that uniquely affect my constituents. The Safe and Sustainable consultation is fundamentally flawed. Three of the four options envisage the closure of the Southampton centre. Those options are based on wrong assumptions and inaccurate data. Let me set out the background. The consultation document states:
	“All options must be able to meet the minimum requirement to collect a child by ambulance…within three hours of being contacted by the referring unit”.
	It then examined “detailed access mapping” using train and road journeys—that is important—and considered how existing networks were affected. More options that did not meet the “three hours” criteria were ruled out. Bristol is included in “all viable options” because south-west Cornwall and south Wales are more than three hours away from either Southampton or Birmingham.
	Unfortunately, nobody in that expert team seems to have noticed that people cannot travel by train or road from the Isle of Wight. There is a clue in the name: it is an island, separated from the mainland by the Solent. I have said before that the ferries provide lifeline services for my constituents, but in this case that is literal. The error in the data was that because we must cross the Solent by ferry, the island is more than three hours away from either Bristol or London.
	In May, that was pointed out to Mr Jeremy Glyde, the programme director of the Safe and Sustainable review. A statement issued on 3 June said that the team
	“based retrieval times between the island and the mainland on travel by air. This was an oversight”
	because the policy is
	“to retrieve children from the Isle of Wight by road and ferry”.
	That is very odd, because the consultation document explicitly states:
	“Air travel has not been considered because it cannot always be relied upon”.
	The statement goes on to say that
	“an ambulance must reach the referring hospital within 3 hours, or within 4 hours in ‘remote areas’”.
	The conclusion was that
	“it is sensible to measure retrieval times to the Isle of Wight against the threshold for ‘remote areas’.”
	On remote areas, the consultation document states:
	“Removing surgery from some centres could have a disproportionate impact on children in some remote areas because ambulances would not be able to reach the child in three hours or less”—
	meaning three hours or less from Southampton in my case.
	On 3 June, Mr Glyde did not say why the Isle of Wight suddenly became a “remote area” when previously it was not. I am sure it did not move without me or any of the other 130,000 residents noticing. I asked Mr Glyde to point me to the guidelines that determine when an
	area is designated as “remote”. He told me that it was a “subjective interpretation” and that the review board recognised that the island,
	“by its very nature, is remote from the mainland”.
	Of course, that is accurate, but the board should have noticed earlier. After starting the consultation and working on it for years, it suddenly struck the board that there are
	“unique factors around retrieval times by ferry”.
	My Glyde was very helpful. He explained:
	“We have been able to generate potential scenarios that could enable the ambulance to meet the standards”.
	They did so not by using the “three hours” standard set out in the consultation, but by deciding that the “four hours” will apply to the newly remote Isle of Wight. It may be possible to generate scenarios in which an ambulance from Bristol or London can get to the island in four hours. I can generate some scenarios in which I become Prime Minister. Neither possibility can be entirely ruled out, but they do not reflect what is likely to happen in real life—[Hon. Members: “No!”]
	Putting aside my political future, let us examine some realities. The AA route planner shows that it takes two hours to get to the other side of the Isle of Wight, and an hour at least—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Catherine McKinnell: That the children’s heart unit at Newcastle’s Freeman hospital is cherished across the north-east is undisputed. One has only to read the coverage of the Newcastle Evening Chronicle “Keep Our Children’s Heart Unit” campaign in recent months to appreciate just how the unit has changed the lives of countless young people and families over the past decades.
	Indeed, because of the pioneering work of the children’s heart unit at the Freeman, it is recognised nationally and internationally as a centre of excellence, with particular strength in quality and outcomes. The unit has also had significant investment over recent years. It is the only unit in the country able to offer all forms of heart treatment, regardless of age, under one roof, and the Freeman is recognised as having led the way in the UK in providing end-stage heart failure treatment for children.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) said, the Freeman famously and bravely performed the UK’s first successful baby heart transplant in 1987. It has performed more than 200 child heart transplants overall, and was recently the first hospital in the world to enable a young child to survive for four months with an artificial heart, while the baby’s own heart recovered.
	The quality of the work carried out at the Freeman means that young patients and their families travel to Newcastle for treatment not just from the west of Cumbria or north Yorkshire, but from as far afield as Scotland, Northern Ireland and even the Republic of Ireland.
	For those reasons, I believe that the children’s heart unit at the Freeman is well-placed to continue providing its excellent, world-leading cardiac surgery services for children. Three of the four options put forward by the Safe and Sustainable review propose that that should be the case. However, I have concerns about attempts to
	move the debate away from the key issue at hand: ensuring that congenital cardiac services provided to children in England and Wales continue to be high quality, and therefore safe, and sustainable and deliverable. That was the intention of the Safe and Sustainable review.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Catherine McKinnell: I shall give way once.

Andrew Percy: I do not think any hon. Members who are fighting to save their local units are trying to move the debate away from that. I shall quote what health professionals from the North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust say:
	“In summary, we believe the babies, children and families of northern Lincolnshire would be largely disadvantaged…knowingly relocating a well run and safe service without providing additional advantage to our families is questionable and unnecessary.”
	We are not moving the debate away from the clinical issues at all.

Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman has put his thoughts and concerns issue on the record.
	I mentioned the intentions of the Safe and Sustainable review, which was instigated by national parent groups, NHS clinicians and their professional associations. Those intentions must be the primary drivers in deciding the final outcome of the review.
	I am equally concerned at suggestions that the decision and outcome of the review should be stalled, or that the remit should be altered. I am not alone in expressing such concerns. The Children’s Heart Foundation argues that that would leave
	“the door wide open for another Bristol Baby tragedy”.
	Meanwhile, the charity Little Hearts Matter believes that the Safe and Sustainable service reconfiguration offers—

Stuart Andrew: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Catherine McKinnell: No, I will not.
	Little Hearts Matter says:
	“The Safe and Sustainable Service reconfiguration offers a monumental opportunity to ensure that every child with a heart problem has access to the best heart surgery service that this country can offer—a gold standard service.”
	I urge anyone in a position of influence, including hon. Members, to support that step forward, and not to halt the process because of personal bias.
	A number of hon. Members are concerned about the co-location of children’s services. However, it is important to note that during the development of the £100 million new Great North Children’s hospital at the Freeman’s sister hospital, the Royal Victoria infirmary, a deliberate decision was made to retain children’s heart services at the Freeman, aligned with the world-renowned adult heart services there.
	Services that simply did not exist 20 years ago have created a new generation of adults needing care, and the service at the Freeman allows for a seamless transition into adulthood. Of course, services at the Great North Children’s hospital are available to the Freeman in a matter of minutes—throughout the review process, they have been recognised as though they are on the same site.
	In conclusion, I am not asking those who will make the final decision to give special treatment to the children’s heart unit at the Freeman, or indeed to the people of Newcastle and the north-east. I am all too aware how difficult this process has been for all children’s heart units under consideration. Each is valued and each has a great story to tell. However, I am asking that the decision is made on the grounds of clinical excellence and the quality of services that are currently provided, and on those grounds alone. I urge that a decision on the future of children’s congenital cardiac services is not put off or prolonged, because the safety of babies and children in need of heart surgery should be paramount in this debate.

Robert Syms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on the measured, sensible and sensitive way in which he moved his motion. There is clearly a lot of strong feeling in the Chamber today, which is understandable given the number of people potentially affected by these changes. We all know that geography in this country is an important consideration, and although a political argument can be made for having fewer centres—it might save some lives—it can also be argued that for some families, particularly those living further from theses hospitals, these proposals could cost lives, if people are unable to get to one of the hospitals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) made an extremely good point about the difficulties with moving the Southampton unit. Yes, parents will go wherever they can get the best treatment, but they prefer to go somewhere nearby. I have constituents who have moved to Poole simply because of its proximity to the Southampton unit, and I expect that families around the country with similar problems also sometimes vote with their feet by buying a home in close proximity to a unit. This point needs to be taken into account. A Mrs Owen made the point to me quite forcefully that it was one reason she and her family moved to Poole.
	The chairman of Poole borough council’s health and social care overview and scrutiny committee has concerns, as do Councillor Charles Meachim and Antoinette McAaulay, who is a consultant paediatrician at Poole hospital. The latter raised concerns about the impact on the Southampton unit and pointed out that Southampton had the highest quality score for clinical care outside London and the second highest in the UK following the Kennedy review in 2010, suggesting that the children’s cardiac paediatrics service in Southampton is a safe service. She also points out that the numbers for Southampton might be wrong because since the suspension of services in Oxford, the numbers have gone up considerably from those quoted in the study.
	Although I agree with the motion and think it silly to stick only with options A, B, C and D, people in my area of the country would prefer B because of the impact it would have on the Southampton centre. People in my constituency have pointed out that the option B proposal includes the centre with the highest quality score, the centre with the best surgery survival rates and the centre with the highest score for research. A strong argument can be made for retaining the Southampton unit. It has strong support from my constituents and people in Dorset, so I hope that the joint committee will consider it carefully.

Annette Brooke: Representing part of Poole, I am aware of the strong feelings there. Equally, however, I take on board the need for clinically driven decisions. Many Members are raising concerns about flaws in the proposals, so it makes a lot of sense to proceed with the motion, because whatever happens we want to be sure that the best decisions are being made. Does my hon. Friend feel that there is great uncertainty?

Robert Syms: I agree with the hon. Lady. It is important to get this right, rather than to rush. Clearly there are concerns. I know that the Minister is a sensible soul and will respond—[Laughter.] Well perhaps he was once a sensible soul. I am sure that he will respond to Members’ concerns. The important thing is that many people out there have concerns that we need to address if we are to deliver a first-rate service that our constituents feel is good for them.

Stephen Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing this important debate. I have the privilege to have in my constituency the hugely impressive and world-class Alder Hey children’s hospital, which I am delighted is included in all four options in the motion. I would express some concern, however, were the motion to be agreed to and were we to go beyond those four options. I hope that Alder Hey would be included in any further options that the joint committee would consider and consult on.
	Alder Hey’s cardiac unit treats children with all forms of heart disease, not only in Liverpool and the wider Merseyside area, but those travelling from the wider north-west of England, north and mid-Wales and the Isle of Man. The total catchment area for children using Alder Hey’s cardiac unit covers about 7 million people, so many people already travel very long distances to use the excellent services there. Since 2006, the hospital has treated more than 4,000 patients for cardiac conditions and performed surgery on more than half of them. I spoke to the hospital this week in anticipation of today’s debate, and it expects that the concentration of surgery at Alder Hey will further increase demand, and has built that into its current plans. Alder Hey is on track to have a brand-new hospital with a children’s park. The plans are very exciting and have got a strong commitment from the local community in my constituency in West Derby. The hospital is strengthening its services. For example, it is investing in the existing team to add a sixth cardiologist and an eighth intensivist, increasing its theatre capacity to enable the delivery of 637 cases per year, and it has already achieved the minimum required activity for this operational year of 447 cases.
	Members have spoken about the balance between our responsibilities to consider the national picture and our constituency responsibilities. Happily I am in a position to argue that the proposals work both in terms of national policy and for my constituents. The Children’s Heart Federation has highlighted some of the benefits of the Safe and Sustainable review’s proposals, which have been mentioned by hon. Members today: minimal cancellations and short waiting times for surgery; better outcomes from surgery; and an end to high-risk rotas in which a surgeon in a small team covering for a colleague on leave can operate all day and be on call all night
	several days running. As has been pointed out, these changes have been put forward by clinicians, and I would urge the House to tread with great care in jeopardising the outcome of such a clinician-led review. We must remind ourselves that the review does not propose the closure of any centres, and would instead concentrate surgery in the centres where it can be performed safely.
	I finish with a broader point that the Minister might like to reflect on. This review is a good example of evidence-based policy making in the NHS. Perhaps we can have more of that as the process of NHS reform moves forward.

Craig Whittaker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for his incredible hard work on this issue, not just this week but over many months.
	Yesterday many MPs received an e-mail from the chief executive of the Children’s Heart Federation, who is also a member of the Safe and Sustainable programme steering group. She wrote:
	“'Clinicians have led these changes and we believe it is wrong that some politicians are now trying to block the process that will lead to the vital improvements in children’s care.”
	I do not agree with that assessment because I agree absolutely with the aims of the review, as do many of my hon. Friends. However, I have an issue with the process of the review and what it has missed out. In the case of Leeds, there has been no formal opportunity to correct factual inaccuracies in Sir Ian Kennedy’s pre-consultation assessment report, and no impact assessment was undertaken before the four options were announced in the consultation
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) said, Leeds delivers what is considered a gold standard of service, and is one of only two hospitals that offer this gold standard. However, the weighting in the criteria did not take account of that at all. It would be fair to say, therefore, that I, my fellow Yorkshire, Humber and Lincolnshire MPs and the more than 500,000 fellow Yorkshiremen who handed in a petition to the Prime Minister this week have little faith in an open and transparent process that is fair for the people in the current Leeds catchment area.

Diana Johnson: And women.

Craig Whittaker: I apologise if I left out women.

Greg Mulholland: Let me too say that it is a pleasure working with my hon. Friend, but can we debunk this myth that we are talking about a review without flaws that is based on clinical guidelines? Option B, which he mentioned, does not even get us to 400 operations for some centres. In too many places the review does not even follow its own logic.

Craig Whittaker: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. This comes back to my basic premise, because all we are asking for is an open, honest and transparent process that will produce the desired outcomes.
	Last year, one of my constituents, Miss Libby Carstairs, spent many months in Leeds hospital and underwent heart surgery several times over several months. As we know, the aims of the consultation clearly show that
	parents would take their child anywhere to get the best treatment when they are as poorly as Libby is and was. Under the proposals, Libby would have gone backwards and forwards several times, probably between Newcastle for surgery and Leeds for her convalescence. Currently, her care and surgery all happen in one place. As with all families at such a stressful time, it was hugely beneficial that the family could visit regularly and help in the convalescence period. Libby’s mum spent her life in that unit with her, and her grandparents played a huge role with relief and support. Libby’s being in Leeds even allowed her head teacher, from Carr Green primary school, the opportunity to visit and take messages of support from her classmates and friends. I saw first hand not only how that cheered Libby up, but how it helped to fast-track the recovery of this poorly little girl. It also without question helped Libby eventually to go home, albeit with high levels of support. Such support from family and friends would not have been possible had Libby been up and down to, say, Newcastle or Liverpool, which are many miles away.
	Although the main principle of parents taking their child wherever they need to go to get the best treatment is absolutely correct, it does not take into account the loss of income to the family through not being in work, the huge cost of travelling much further distances, and the incredibly important network of support from family and friends at what is an awfully frustrating and stressful time for everyone involved—the big society at its best, as it were. I cannot imagine what it is like not to know whether one’s child is going to live or die, so I cannot begin to comprehend the full extent of the support needed and appreciated by families.
	Contrary to the e-mail received yesterday, MPs do understand the process, as do the 500,000 people who have signed the petition. However, it is scandalous that Leeds fits into only one of the four options, particularly as vital information has been missed out of Sir Ian Kennedy’s assessment. To sum up, if the Government are big enough to listen to the people and amend their proposals on issues such as the NHS and jail, surely clinicians at the JCPCT should be big enough to review their plans, by listening to what 500,000 people from Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire are telling them to do.

Alan Whitehead: Southampton children’s services are located at Southampton General hospital, right in the middle of my constituency. The hard work undertaken by the large numbers of people who organised the petition presented at No. 10 yesterday—I and a number of fellow Members from across south-central England managed to get ourselves very wet helping to deliver it—showed not partisan fighting on behalf of a particular unit, regardless of its quality or the service that it represents, but genuine mystification that the process appears to have dealt so peripherally with Southampton’s role in the national roll-out of services. In 2010, Sir Ian Kennedy rated Southampton as provider of the highest quality service outside London, rating it particularly highly on paediatric intensive care and support for parents, and highly on training and innovation.
	That mystification as to why such a unit should feature in just one of the options in the review was
	compounded by an examination of the background to that review. Indeed, perhaps the explanation for why Southampton appears to have been treated so peripherally can be found in the review itself. Of course it is important that the review should be completed, that changes should be made and that judgments be made on clinical grounds. However, I would suggest that it is not on clinical grounds that anyone should have forgotten that the Isle of Wight exists. That is the province of geographers rather than clinicians. If clinicians depend on the material in a review setting out the factors that will be taken into account in their final decision, much of their power in making that decision could be overthrown by what goes into that review in the first place.
	It is not a clinical decision for the review to state that Southampton has two surgeons and undertakes 231 procedures, when in fact it will have four surgeons by this summer and undertake almost 400 procedures, as a result of, among other things, its excellent collaboration with Oxford, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) mentioned earlier, but which the review appears to neglect. If such a decision is made by the review, which appears to have got so many things wrong about the background to Southampton’s excellent services, the 250,000 petitioners who signed the petition that went to No. 10 yesterday will justifiably feel let down by the process, whoever conducts it. The national health service has a long and honourable record of stitching people up for the right reasons. If as a result of the review those 250,000 people end up feeling stitched up for the wrong reasons, they will have every right to feel very aggrieved indeed.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Just to inform the House of the procedure, I will now call the Minister. The recommendation from the Backbench Business Committee is that he speaks for about 15 minutes. However, I should remind the House that if he takes persistent interventions, that will extend the time that he spends on his feet, which will deny other Back Benchers the opportunity of speaking. The shadow Minister will be speaking towards the end of the debate.

Simon Burns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing this debate on the review of children’s heart surgery services. He has a strong record of campaigning on this issue and of bringing the concerns of his constituents to the attention of the House. I also congratulate him and the other hon. Members on the motion they tabled. The Government and I wholeheartedly support its contents, and I urge other hon. Members to do so as well.
	I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated NHS staff who work in children’s heart services in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. They do a tremendous job, for which we are all incredibly grateful, more often than not in complex and difficult circumstances.
	I should like to confirm that the review is totally independent of the Government, and that it is clinically led. It is not driven by me, by other Ministers or by the Department of Health. It is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on the specific hospitals consulted
	during process. I do not wish to act, or to be seen to act, in a way that could influence or prejudice the process that is going on. As many hon. Members have said, this is a highly emotive issue, particularly for those whose children’s lives have been saved by the services under review. It is worth reminding ourselves why the review was conceived and planned and is now being carried out.
	This is not a new issue. The provision of children’s heart surgery has been a cause for concern since the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry in the late 1990s. Understandably, there has been considerable pressure from national parents groups and professionals to ensure that children receive the best treatment, and the sole purpose of the Safe and Sustainable review is to ensure that children with congenital heart problems receive the best possible care now and long into the future. To do that, we must be certain that the centres in which surgery takes place are as good as they can be.

David Davis: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that my constituents, like all the others in Yorkshire, are in favour of Leeds, but I do not want to draw him on that. I would like him to help us in our argument by telling us what the clinical outcomes for Leeds are and how they compare with other centres. In particular, will he confirm that they are all safe?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. With regard to Leeds teaching hospital, he will know that this is a complex issue. There are 36 different surgical procedures listed on the central cardiac audit database, but the three most relevant ones in the context of his question are those that deal with atrioventricular septal defect, arterial switch and Fallot’s tetralogy. Over the past six years, 304 operations have taken place involving those three specialties. Sadly, the number of patients who died within 30 days was 12, and 18 died within one year. The results of surgery in all units are good, with no significant divergence. The issue, however, is the future. We need to prepare for units that can deal with these highly complex procedures and the intense technology needed, and provide the qualified doctors and nurses involved, in order to keep up with professional and public expectations of the high quality of care required. This is not so much about today’s figures as about how we meet the challenges of the future to provide the finest and safest possible care in this deeply complex area of medical treatment.
	The consensus among professional associations is that there should be no fewer than four congenital surgeons in a centre, each performing between 100 and 125 procedures every year, for a centre to be optimally staffed. Over the past few years, the outcomes for the services have remained good, as the figures that I have just given to my right hon. Friend illustrate, but there have been several warning signs that the current arrangements are fragile. For many years, professionals and national children’s charities, including the Children’s Heart Federation and the British Heart Foundation, have urged the NHS to review services for children with congenital heart disease. They have consistently raised serious concerns about the risks posed by the unsustainable and sub-optimal nature of smaller surgical centres.
	Many of the 150 types of operation undertaken by these dedicated teams are among the most complex, challenging and technically demanding areas of surgery. Success requires intricate surgery on hearts often no bigger than a walnut, coupled with finely balanced judgments drawn from a combination of advancing science, personal experience and compassion. It involves a range of highly trained individual team members—before, during and after the operation.
	The risks posed by the complex nature of heart surgery include not just possible death after surgery, but lifelong complications such as brain damage and other disabilities. The judgments of any expert medical team caring for a particular child therefore have a direct and long-lasting impact not only the future of each vulnerable child, but on that of their families.
	There is also the issue of recruitment. The fact is that smaller centres have problems with recruiting and retaining the very best surgeons. There is a risk that those working in smaller centres will find themselves working in isolation and in units that are not as up-to-date with techniques and clinical practice as the larger ones are.

Greg Mulholland: We all understand the premise of the review about the need to move to larger centres, but does the Minister not understand—I am not trying to draw him—the real concern when Leeds is performing 370 procedures a year and Newcastle, a smaller unit, performed only 255 last year, yet Newcastle is in all four options and Leeds only in one?

Simon Burns: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I hope that he will appreciate that he is now trying to draw me into a discussion on the merits of Leeds as against Newcastle. As I said earlier, it is inappropriate for me as a Minister to do that. However, it is a point that the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and others can make more than adequately to the joint committee, which will be able to determine the merits of the argument prior to reaching a decision. I urge the hon. Gentleman to understand how inappropriate it would be for me to go down the route of arguing the merits or demerits of one area or another.
	Smaller centres struggle to train and mentor junior surgeons, making these units less attractive to the senior surgeons of tomorrow and making it difficult to provide a safe 24-hour service. We must ensure that our surgeons and their teams are well supported. They need opportunities to develop their experience as they become increasingly expert in these intricate and complex procedures. We must ensure that all the hospitals that provide heart surgery for children can also provide care within safe medical rotas.
	No parent would wish the care of their child to be entrusted to a surgeon who, though an excellent doctor, is overly tired because they have had to work around the clock without any peer support. This means that to reduce the risk of surgery in sick children and to improve their long-term outcomes, we must focus our surgical expertise in larger centres. The need has become ever more pressing with the increasing complexity of treatment.
	As hon. Members will know, the national review is known as the Safe and Sustainable review. Its aim is to ensure that children’s heart services deliver the very highest standard of care. The NHS must use its skills
	and resources collectively to gain the best outcomes for patients. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, in line with the Government’s entire approach to the NHS, this review is both independent and clinically led. May I reassure hon. Members that the objective of the review is not to close children’s heart centres? Far from it. While surgery may cease in some centres, they will continue to provide specialist, non-interventional services for their local population.
	Indeed, the review proposes to extend local care further, supported by the professional associations that support the increased clinical expertise across England. This wider support is crucial. Surgery is usually a single, short episode in what is often a lifelong relationship with specialist congenital heart services. The aim is to improve those services as a whole and to ensure that as much non-surgical care as possible is delivered as close to the child’s home as possible through the development of local congenital heart networks. These will enable children to be safely and expertly cared for nearer to home in the longer term.
	Given the complexity of the issues for consideration, the NHS has held a four-month, rather than the usual three-month, consultation. Hon. Members should be reassured that the consultation process has been impressive in its scope, inclusiveness and transparency.

Julian Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: I will, but it will be for the last time.

Julian Smith: I thank the Minister. Will he comment on the lack of translation of certain consultation documents, which has affected many communities, particularly in and around the Leeds area?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and I will address it later in my speech.
	No decision has yet been made about which centres should continue to undertake surgery. That decision will be made only after the responses to the consultation have been properly and fully considered. The chair of the joint committee of primary care trusts, Sir Neil McKay, has made it clear that it is a genuine consultation and that all viable proposals will be considered, and I agree with that. There has been no pre-determination of the number of centres that will be selected. Rather, the review remains flexible and open-minded as to the final number and is happy to listen to all options that would produce the excellent clinical outcomes for our children that we desire.
	As I have said however, this review is being driven by a powerful clinical imperative. The trend in children’s heart care is towards increasingly complex surgery on ever-smaller babies. That requires surgical teams that are large enough to provide sufficient exposure to complex cases, so that surgeons and their teams can maintain and develop their specialist skills. Larger teams also provide the capacity to train and mentor the next generation of surgeons. In recent years, other countries have recognised the clinical necessity of larger surgical units and have reconfigured their services along the lines proposed by the Safe and Sustainable proposals. Here in the United Kingdom, there are successful precedents for centralisation. In the past 15 years, the congenital cardiac services in
	Cardiff and Edinburgh have ceased heart surgery on children, as they recognised that their centres were just too small to be sustainable.
	I also want to reassure Members about the integrity of the process that was followed in developing the options for consultation. In the past, concerns have been put to me in this House about mistakes in the assessment process, particularly relating to the Leeds service, and Members have referred to that again today. I understand that since our last debate in February or March of this year the chair of the joint committee, Sir Neil McKay, has written to the chief executive of the trust in Leeds to explain why mistakes have not been made in relation to the Leeds centre.
	Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) in his recent intervention, have also raised the issue of documents not being made available in a sufficiently wide range of languages, thereby excluding those who speak those languages from the consultation process. The relevant documents have for several weeks been available in 10 different languages, including Urdu, Arabic, Farsi and Punjabi. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) shakes her head, but I assure her that they have been available for several weeks, although I accept that they were not available from the first day of the review. That may be the point the hon. Lady was seeking to make, and I agree with her if she thinks they should have been from the first day. We cannot change the fact that they were not available from then, however, but they have been available from, I believe, 20 May, and the consultation process runs until 1 July, which gives sufficient time for people who need to access the documents in those languages to do so and to be able to input their views.
	I hope to be able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on retrieval times and access times from the Isle of Wight, given its unique geographical situation. It is my understanding that the joint committee of primary care trusts has agreed that Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust has provided evidence on this issue that requires further consideration and has invited the trust to develop a detailed case regarding retrievals from the Isle of Wight, which the committee will consider as part of the evidence to determine the optimum reconfiguration.
	Several Members raised the issue of the inclusion of black and minority ethnic communities in the consultation process. There have been a number of workshops and focus groups, many of which have been aimed specifically at the BME communities. Almost 2,000 community groups and organisations that have an interest in BME issues have been contacted and invited to take part in the proceedings. Public meetings have been arranged, particularly in Leeds, specifically for the Asian population of Yorkshire in partnership with representatives of local BME groups. The Leeds meeting is on 29 June, there is a meeting planned for Bradford on 30 June and a further meeting is planned for Kirklees. I hope that hon. Members who represent parts of Yorkshire and the surrounding catchment areas will be assured by that.
	To abide by your rules, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now conclude by saying that I am confident about the consultation. Everyone will accept that all consultations of this nature can be difficult, when tough decisions have to be taken. The decisions have to be taken for the
	right reasons, based on clinical evidence about the best way to improve and enhance care and the quality of care for patients. That is particularly true in this case because more often than not the patients are very young children with very complex needs—that is what makes this issue so difficult.
	Let me reiterate that no decisions have been taken or will be taken until the joint committee has had an opportunity to consider the independent analysis of the consultation responses, reports from any local overview and scrutiny committees and a health impact assessment. Throughout, it will remain open-minded and flexible as to the number of centres. The only important consideration will be the sustainability of clinical excellence at the centres chosen. I doubt whether this is the case, but if any hon. Members have not taken part in the consultation I urge them to do so. I also urge them to ensure that their constituents and organisations in their constituencies with an interest in this matter take part in the consultation if they have not already done so, so that the committee can have the widest range of views, information and opinion before reaching what will, in any circumstances, be difficult decisions.

Nicholas Dakin: It is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who was very careful in setting out how he is attempting to ensure that this process proceeds in an appropriate way. I was pleased by his comments about the consultation being genuine and about the review being flexible, open-minded and not limited to a particular set or number of outcomes. His contribution was very reassuring and I thank him for that.
	I would like to use as my reference point a lady who attended a meeting in Scunthorpe, at the Wortley House hotel, for people who have used the Leeds children’s heart unit’s services in recent years. Her use of the service goes back to when it was in Killingbeck hospital a long time ago before it moved to Leeds General infirmary in 1997. At that point, as has been pointed out, all children’s services were located in one area to great positive effect for the children of the Yorkshire and the Humber region. What she said to the people from Leeds at that consultation was that she really did not mind where the heart surgery locations were, but that she wanted the very best to be delivered for children in need so that they could access the best and most excellent services. She went on to say that her experience of the Leeds service was such as to give her assurance that it would meet those needs. She was particularly concerned that proper outreach services should remain in any future configuration. Her daughter was expecting another child and was already engaged, in relation to her pregnancy, with service support through Leeds, which was going to make it less likely that there would be significant cardiac problems that could not be dealt with at the appropriate time and with appropriate effectiveness.
	In the Scunthorpe area, we tend to be on the periphery of things, so we always have to travel, in this case to Leeds. The weather conditions at the end of last year made it difficult to travel to and from Scunthorpe, and a two-hour journey with unwell youngsters would have led to great concern.
	We need to make sure that there are proper outreach services to give support in future and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) said earlier, we must recognise that people should have equality of access to excellence wherever they are in the country. That is important for my constituents.

Ian Mearns: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems a little unfortunate that the options in the consultation would not include the continuation of services at both Leeds and the Freeman hospital in Newcastle? That was deeply upsetting for parents in the communities that both hospitals serve. There is real concern that the excellent heart and lung transplant service at the Freeman hospital could be jeopardised.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. One of the things illustrated by the debate is that there are many forms of excellent practice, with excellent people working across the country in this area of medicine.

David Ward: It is good to be working with the hon. Gentleman on this issue, but does he agree that there is a fundamental problem? Newcastle performs only 255 procedures, so it needs the Leeds unit to close to reach the 400 figure specified in the review, whereas Leeds can stand on its own. Together, we have to challenge that premise, because the European regulations state that 250 procedures is perfectly safe. The Newcastle unit is safe and the Leeds unit is safe; they are both excellent. Together, we have to challenge the review.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Leeds delivered 316 cardiac operations in 2009-10 and 372 in 2010-11, so the numbers meet the criteria fairly closely.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing the debate. The Minister will have heard from his comments that there is still not total confidence in the integrity and transparency of the review. I feel that the Minister has helped to allay those fears and I am reassured by his saying that the review will be open, genuine and flexible. I thank him for putting that message across so strongly. The hon. Member for Pudsey clearly outlined the concerns, especially the need properly to engage with the ethnic minority community. Although it sounds as though steps have been taken latterly, they ought to have been taken at the beginning of the process, given the fact that young people in that community have a higher incidence of cardiac issues than the rest of the population.
	I hope that the people conducting the review will hear the excellent comments that have been made by Members on both sides of the House, and from all regions of the country, during the debate, and that they will think outside the box, as the hon. Members for Pudsey and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said earlier. We need to be flexible. We do not need to compromise on clinical excellence or clinical outcomes for children, but we should recognise the need for equality of access to excellence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East said. I hope that our debate will be part of the consultation process that the Minister assures us is genuine, listening and ongoing, and that it will assist us in reaching an outcome that we can all applaud.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. I am sure that hon. Members will show time discipline, so that we can get as many of them in as we possibly can.

George Hollingbery: I should like briefly to place on the record my grateful thanks to the 18 highly qualified consultants from Portsmouth who recently wrote to me to express their support for the Southampton unit. As time is short, rather than repeating much of what has been already said, I should like to concentrate solely on one element of the review: retrieval times and their effect on the volume gateway.
	The number of operations that a centre undertakes is clearly important to generate wide experience across a team and maximise the accumulated wisdom in any unit and, crucially, its support services. That seems entirely logical and sensible, and it is, of course, at the very centre of the entire review, but the available volume is crucially affected by one absolutely critical variable: the distances of emergency admissions, or retrieval, as it is known.
	The paediatric heart unit closest to my constituency is in Southampton—thus, of course, it has been the focus of my attention. I absolutely agree with the point made by many hon. Members that we should not let our local sympathies cloud our judgment on what is a national matter, and I hope I have not done so. It is worth pointing out to hon. Members that for many constituents in Meon Valley, my constituency, the reality is that the loss of the Southampton unit would not be a huge disadvantage. The change would result in their becoming clients of the Evelina children’s hospital at Guy’s and St Thomas’s—hardly a poor alternative for them—but we should notice that the insistence that a three-hour, road-based retrieval time for emergency admissions should act as part of the gateway excludes certain parts of the south-west and south Wales from Southampton’s potential catchment. Initially and puzzlingly, as we have also heard, the Isle of Wight was also excluded, but that seems to have been sorted out, for which we are all grateful.
	Why is this important? Simply because Southampton has the second highest score for quality in the country at 513 points, with the Evelina at the top of the list with 535 points. Although I genuinely do not believe that it is the place of elected politicians to wade in every time that the NHS wants to reconfigure local services, I am concerned that the review is likely to result in the loss of one of the very best heart units in the country.
	We have been told that quality was presumed to be the overall driver of the review and that quality trumped geographical proximity and convenience. So the decision to include the Southampton unit, which is rated second in the country for quality, in only one option must be regarded as running counter to the core principles of the decision-making process. I fear that the panel may choose to lose one of the highest-quality options available in favour of a lower-quality alternative, for reasons that do not necessarily stand up when looked at closely.
	I believe that those who are tasked with making the decision need to satisfy themselves that the overall three-hour road retrieval criterion is truly as crucial as it seems. Can it really be right that, in a review driven at its
	core by quality, the population-level risk of closing the second highest-rated paediatric cardiac surgical unit in the country is truly outweighed by a possibly longer-than-three-hour retrieval for a small number of potential patients? Only the joint committee of primary care trusts can make that judgment, and I leave it to do so. I simply ask that it considers that key variable and wish it the very best in making a decision that, although entirely necessary, is bound to upset many people.

Nicky Morgan: I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible to allow other hon. Members to have their say. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who secured the debate, and all the other Members who have supported him. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the subject to be debated in the main Chamber.
	I shall speak in favour of the motion. I was first contacted about the issue shortly after the election, and I should like to thank in particular the Russell family in Loughborough for bringing it to my attention. The review is called Safe and Sustainable for a good reason, and I entirely endorse the statement that all hon. Members probably received from the Little Hearts Matter campaign that the review offers a monumental opportunity to ensure that every child with a heart problem has access to the best heart surgery service that this country can offer. I am sure that that is what we all want.
	I am, however, concerned by a few comments made by Opposition Members and in a recent article in The Times, which seemed to question why MPs felt the need to defend their local services whenever a reconfiguration is suggested. That is a misunderstanding of the role of 21st century Members of Parliament, however long ago they were elected. We are here to speak up on behalf of our constituents. I am sure that all hon. Members here today and those who cannot be here have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about their access or that of their children and grandchildren—those born and not yet born—to heart surgery should the need arise. It is absolutely our duty to stand up for that and to ask whether the review and the options are right. However, I am very pleased that, as a Member of Parliament, I am not the one making the final decisions.
	As I said, I support option A, as do my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth). I am sure that, although the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) will focus on the national perspective, she will manage to get in a reference to Glenfield hospital somewhere in her concluding remarks. That hospital serves my constituents extremely well and I am in awe and admiration of those who work there—the surgeons, those who run intensive care units, all the nurses, and the many staff who packed the Walkers stadium for two consultation meetings last Thursday. Option A is the highest scoring option and the most cost-effective.
	In the time available I want to talk about a topic that the hon. Member for Leicester South touched on—the ECMO services at Glenfield hospital. The hospital treated many of the patients who had swine flu over the winter, and the national leaders of the NHS said that the
	nation owed Leicester a debt of gratitude for the work that it had done with ECMO. My worry about the review—if option A were successful, I would not have this worry—is that we have a clinically excellent service in ECMO and I do not want to see that jeopardised in any way. As has been said, if the children’s ECMO service is moved, that will inevitably have an impact on the adult ECMO services. We should be very careful in this country about not respecting such clinically excellent services. We should allow them to continue in places where the staff are already well trained and well versed and offer a service of national importance.
	My final point, which the Minister addressed—I am grateful to him—is about translation. There are a large number of ethnic minority people in Leicester and in my constituency of Loughborough. My right hon. Friend the Minister generously acknowledged the fact that it would have been helpful if the documents had been translated earlier. The question posed by hon. Members in the debate is whether that impacts on the fairness of the review and the way the process has been carried out. That is clearly for others to judge. It will be interesting to see how many people reply using documents that have been translated.
	The timeline in the consultation document shows that the process has been going on for a long time, so it should not have been beyond the wit of man or of the review committee to realise that many of the services are located in areas where there are high ethnic minority populations, and that those documents should have been translated early enough to make sure that members of those populations could play their full part in making their views heard.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. If hon. Members speak for just under four minutes, everyone will get in.

Steve Brine: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). There have been some interesting moments in the past week and I know he has enjoyed every minute of it.
	I want to be clear from the outset that I have never called and am not calling for the Safe and Sustainable review to be stopped or even paused. The Children’s Heart Federation said to me this week, as it said to many Members:
	“We urge MPs countrywide to support the need for change and fight for the highest quality national children’s heart service.”
	I could not agree more and I could not have put it better myself. In the words of Sir Ian Kennedy, whom Members know well:
	“Mediocrity must not be our benchmark for the future.”
	Spot on, again.
	On that point, let me take head-on the inevitable comments in some of today’s newspapers. Intellectually the case for change is compelling and, to be clear, I am not co-sponsoring today’s debate out of political or personal interest. For me, today is about getting us back to a point where the focus of the review is on quality. I
	recognise 100% that, since the recommendations from the Bristol inquiry were published a decade ago, professional bodies and patient groups involved in children’s heart care have been united in pressing for changes in the organisation of services to drive up the quality of treatment.
	The Safe and Sustainable review states its main aim as providing
	“excellent care for children with congenital heart disease”.
	I have yet to meet one person who disagrees with that statement, but I have met many who take issue with how we are trying to get there. Each speaker this afternoon has in mind the children’s heart centre serving their constituents and many of us, myself included, will no doubt make points in support of the option containing their unit. That is fair enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) said, we are MPs and would not be representing our constituents if we did anything less.
	However, for me it is not all about my backyard. The points I have to make about Southampton have a wider purpose and illustrate the bigger picture. During the past few months, Members from across the House have listened to one another speak on the subject and heard the arguments ring one or two bells. For me, that moment came in the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey secured in March. That is what brought us together. As so often happens in this House, disparate parts come together to form something much bigger.
	It is true that some campaigns in other parts of the country have been bigger and more muscular than others. It is also true that the campaign based around the so-called option B, which is to retain children’s heart surgery at Southampton, has been enormous by any measure. Its momentum flows directly from the fact that 17 weeks ago, when the options were published, the second-best children’s heart unit in the country was given only a one-in-four chance of survival. I want to be crystal clear that the team from Southampton supported the Safe and Sustainable review taking place and, on balance, still does, but it was shocked to the core to learn that a process that is about quality could put one of the world’s top centres on such a sticky wicket.
	This week I received the final submission from the Hampshire health overview and scrutiny committee to the joint committee of primary care trusts. The opening paragraph does not pull any punches:
	“Given that it has taken over a decade to reach this point, our observation is that the overarching objectives of this exercise—to improve the quality of these services for children—has been lost in an adversarial and divisive consultation exercise which has focused predominantly on defending the process and not on delivering the desired outcome.”
	My fear is that Sir Ian Kennedy’s feared “mediocrity” is exactly the outcome that we are in danger of delivering unless those leading the process change their focus. The scrutiny committee also said:
	“The responses to issues raised by clinicians, parents and other stakeholders seem to reflect a preoccupation by those driving ‘Safe and Sustainable’ with defending the process against legal challenge rather than securing the prize of better quality care for these patients. This is not acceptable or in the interests of the patients affected.”
	That puts it very well.
	The Isle of Wight factor is fast moving centre stage in the Southampton campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) spoke with his usual force on the subject, so there is no need to say any more on it, other than to say that it is not too late in this regard and that the Safe and Sustainable team is listening carefully to the island’s arguments.
	Finally, I will be supporting the motion because it clearly welcomes the aim of sustaining the provision of services based around quality. Above all—this is the key part that we worked so hard to include in the motion—I support the call for the joint committee not to restrict itself to the four options outlined in the review document. A case can be made for options A, B, C or D, but it can also be made for E and F. I ask it to bear that in mind as it goes forward to the end of the process on 1 July.

Nicola Blackwood: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on his leadership in securing the debate. I open my remarks by paying tribute to Oxford’s paediatric cardiac team, including Professor Steve Westaby. The team have saved countless lives and have the complete confidence of the patients and families who have asked me to speak up for them today. I also pay tribute to the Young Hearts charity, which has stood up for children with congenital heart disease and their families in Oxfordshire and presented a petition, which I am holding in my hands, with thousands of signatures to the Prime Minister in his constituency this month. They have done much to assure services in Oxfordshire.
	Few would take issue with the basic aims of the Safe and Sustainable review; who does not want to improve outcomes for children with congenital heart disease? That is not where the concerns lie. The review works on a simple premise: more surgeons doing more surgeries will achieve better outcomes for more patients. That makes perfect sense, but in this instance, as the motion states, size is not everything. Although the simple centralisation of specialist services is backed by clinical evidence, some clinicians in Oxford, Southampton and elsewhere are of the opinion that it draws on too narrow an evidentiary base and that matters such as the co-location of services, assessed travel and population projections must also be considered.
	On co-location, for example, a 2008 Department of Health report states that cardiac surgery requires the absolute co-location of paediatric cardiology, paediatric critical care, specialist paediatric anaesthetics, specialist paediatric surgery and specialist paediatric ear, nose and throat services. Even though Safe and Sustainable states that the co-location of those services should be mandatory, it is not clear how the four proposed options meet the standards of the framework of critical interdependencies or, for that matter, the standards of Safe and Sustainable itself. I hope that the Minister will note those grave concerns, which patient groups, families and clinicians have expressed, and will ensure that the joint committee of primary care trusts takes the process forward, clarifying the issue of the co-location of service and properly and transparently communicating that clarification to those groups.
	A child with congenital heart disease does not exist in isolation. He or she is cared for tirelessly by family
	members who have to make terrifying treatment decisions, and by siblings who have to accept that home life is on hold while parents go to and from hospital and everyone concentrates only on keeping that child alive. That is what parents do for their children. It is what they sacrifice and do without hesitation, because nothing matters more than bringing that child home again, happy and healthy, so that everything can get back to normal. No matter how freely they give that care, however, caring for a child with congenital heart disease puts massive stresses on parents and siblings, and the outcome of the review should also try to relieve that pressure, if at all possible.
	That is not just a moral argument; paediatric patient outcomes improve when carers cope better. I know that Ministers believe that the best possible surgical outcome is the best way to help families, but families who come to see me are worried that they will not be able to get to the hospital for the surgery in the first place; that there will be longer waiting lists; that they will not have continuous care under surgeons whom they can trust with their child’s life; that staff at units that close will not be able to move to those that scale up; that we will lose dedicated people from the NHS; and that there will be a shortfall in service while new staff are trained up. All those concerns are just as valid and significant as ensuring that the surgeon has the necessary skill once he gets the patient on to the operating table.
	The irony is that, while the Safe and Sustainable options are causing that concern, Oxford and Southampton already have an option that is working as we speak. The south of England congenital heart network offers the quality guarantees of an increase in clinical team size and patient base that Safe and Sustainable seeks, while creating and retaining the continuity of care and patient access that local clinicians and patients fear losing. That network was developed and is led by clinical teams at Oxford and Southampton; it has five congenital heart surgeons and nine consultant paediatric cardiologists; and it is the first time that two teaching hospitals have collaborated to provide joint tertiary clinical service.
	That is exactly the kind of networking arrangement that Safe and Sustainable aspires to create, but the network puts the patient first, not the surgeon. It makes the best use of existing services but does not require extensive restructuring of human or physical resources; it addresses the problems of waiting times, travel times and co-location which Safe and Sustainable has failed to address; and, most importantly, it has been tried and tested for more than a year.
	There is a risk that Safe and Sustainable will be seen as a top-down, inherited review, so a locally innovative system such as that network, which is supported by local heart groups, supported by local clinicians and clinically driven, is something that the Government should seek to support.

John Glen: In view of the time, I will be as brief as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for initiating this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr Brine), who has provided much sound advice and support as we have brought this case to the House.
	Two issues about the calculation of quality have come to my attention through my constituents Joanne Diaper and Richard Maguire. Southampton scored extremely well, but I am concerned about the differences between the various hospitals and how they have scored. If there is a range of difference of up to 20% on outcomes, I am concerned that the review could institutionalise mediocrity, not excellence.
	There is consensus throughout the medical world that, as the Children’s Heart Foundation chief executive says,
	“the majority of parents recognise that paediatric cardiac surgery is a specialist service,”
	and that there will need to be some rationalisation nationally. She goes on to say that parents
	“support the concept of larger but fewer centres of excellence”—
	not of centres that are quite good but could become better over time. Given the complexity of the procedures that need to be undertaken, it behoves those reviewing the decision to note excellence and to embed it in future provision. We need to drive up standards in areas that do not have excellence.
	Some clinical experts may move to the other side of the country, or perhaps to another country altogether. Most parents of chronically sick children with conditions that can be treated only by two or three specialists will travel any distance because they want to know that they have the best chance of having their children’s lives extended. The motion makes a sensible case in recognising the need for partnerships, and I welcome the partnership that exists between Southampton and Oxford.
	It was announced in the Safe and Sustainable pre-consultation business case that 400 surgical procedures constituted a minimum threshold, but the mix could be extended to include surgery on adults as well as children. It is vital to look at what is clinically the right thing to do instead of imposing a threshold that seems convenient but does not do justice to the skills that exist in individual hospitals.
	In the interests of time, I will now conclude my remarks to allow some of my colleagues to make, I hope, some different points.

Alec Shelbrooke: I will try to be brief to allow as many of my colleagues as possible to speak.
	I do not want to take up too much time in defending the case for Leeds because that has been done exceptionally well by many others. Like me, a good number of the Leeds MPs who now occupy this place were city councillors there, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie)—a distinguished leader of Leeds council who was very much involved in achieving our aim of having the children’s hospital all in one place. As Leeds councillors, we had personal experience of this matter when one of our colleagues died of heart disease in his early thirties. He was from the black and minority ethnic community, which makes up 23% of the population
	of Leeds. Sadly, that community has inherent heart problems. That has been overlooked, and it needs to be given weight in the review.
	We have heard about many of the flaws in the review. The Minister rightly says that he does not have any influence over the review, which is independent, and as individual MPs we probably do not have much influence over it either. What we do have, however, is this place. Twenty-four hours ago, we were knocking nine bells out of each other. It was raucous and it was fun; we made some serious points and we were having a go. Today, from across the Chamber, some very serious speeches have been made. No matter which side of the House we are on, politics does not come into it. This House is speaking with one voice, and that voice should be heard by the people carrying out the review.
	When Members of a House such as ours, which can be so confrontational, all come together, that shows the real power of our parliamentary democracy. Although the Minister, and we as individuals, may not have any direct influence on this process, it would be extremely foolish for the people involved not to take note that we will almost certainly not divide on the motion and that we all support it, including the Minister himself and the Government. My constituents are always asking whether we can work together, and we can. Everyone has come together to say that the House of Commons says that the review needs to be looked at again and other options need to be developed. That is a powerful message that I want to go forth to the people who are carrying out the review.

Caroline Nokes: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing this debate. I thank the Minister for his important comments on, and support for, the motion.
	I feel strongly that there should be a change in the configuration of children’s cardiac surgery, but it must create the right configuration. We want the correct answer to the question, and we want the review team to listen to all the arguments and make its decision based on the best possible evidence. I argue strongly, representing as I do part of the city of Southampton, that when we are looking at the important issue of children’s cardiac surgery, we must base our decision on quality.
	I have been in regular contact with a constituent of mine, Mr Jim Monro, whose name will be familiar to all Members who have investigated this matter because he is one of the country’s most eminent cardiac surgeons. He is now retired. He first conducted a review into children’s cardiac surgery after the tragedies in Bristol in the 1990s. He feels strongly that he has seen this matter kicked into the long grass for too long. We must crack on and ensure that the review is completed. However, it must take into account the best available evidence and come up with the right outcome. None of us wishes to see a recurrence of the dreadful tragedies in Bristol. That is where the roots of the review lie.
	Although I support the need for the review, I do not endorse the process, nor the recommendations in their entirety. I question three elements in particular. Fundamentally, the review must be about quality. We have to ensure that the best outcomes are achieved for
	the very sickest babies and children. However, the Southampton unit, which has a superb record of outcomes, finds itself in only one option—option B, the so-called quality option. I cannot believe that that is right for one of the highest performing units in the country. It carries out difficult procedures, does not cherry-pick cases where the best outcomes are likely, has proved that it can work collaboratively with Oxford, is widely acknowledged to be one of the best units in the country, and already has three surgeons, with a fourth starting shortly. I have heard colleagues describe it as a perverse outcome that one of the country’s top performing units is included in only one option, in which postcode matters more than the life chances of the sickest babies.
	Secondly, and I will not rehearse this argument at great length, there is the additional complication of the Isle of Wight. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) has informed us of that issue clearly. People from Southampton want an answer to that question. Six weeks ago at a consultation meeting, they were promised that more information would be forthcoming from the review team about how significant the Isle of Wight factor was. We are still waiting.
	Thirdly, the manner in which the consultation is being conducted has created an adversarial climate in which cardiac unit is put against cardiac unit and surgeon is put against surgeon. I feared that today we would see MP against MP, but we have not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said, this has been a collaborative debate that has picked up on the strengths of each case.
	I welcome the spirit in which this House has responded to the motion.

Julian Sturdy: Like many Members, I have a local heart unit that I shall seek to defend. However, before discussing the merits of retaining the Leeds unit, it is important to acknowledge the wider context of the debate.
	I strongly believe that the Safe and Sustainable review is a necessary and genuine exercise. Its aim is to ensure that the highest possible level of surgical care is provided to each and every affected child, regardless of where they live. There is no doubt that the case for change is medically accepted. Nevertheless, I believe that decisions over the potential closure of local health services cannot and should not be taken lightly. In the light of the huge amount of evidence behind the motion, I urge the review’s steering group to take as much time as possible in considering the performance, locality, capacity and strength of each unit, among other factors.
	On the basis of those four criteria, I strongly believe that closing the Leeds unit would be a huge mistake. The first and most important factor is performance. Leeds General infirmary is at the forefront of work on cardiac conditions. All the relevant reviews and statistics highlight its record of excellence in providing safe and high-quality children’s heart surgery. An important contributing factor in that excellence is the centralisation of the whole children’s services operation at the site in Leeds. However, the review document contains discrepancies when it comes to the definition of co-location of services. To me, co-location means all children’s services operating on a single site, and Leeds is one of only two hospitals cited in the review that offer that gold standard.
	The second principle is locality. The unit is within two hours’ travel time for nearly 14 million people, including 5.5 million in the Yorkshire and the Humber area. In such highly populated areas, surely the focus should be on delivering services to the people and delivering them to the greatest area of need, not vice versa. In my view, the location of the unit and the huge number of children whom it serves make its continued existence imperative.
	The review document states that parents need not accompany their children. I have two young children myself. What parents would not want to accompany their children in such difficult circumstances? Sadly, however, that is not always possible. There are child care arrangements to be made, and work issues and transport links to be considered. The stress of all that is extremely disturbing for all families in such circumstances. I realise that that applies to all the centres, not just Leeds, but I believe that we must take account of the core principles: the need to deliver services to the people, and the need to provide easy access for as many as possible. That means locating services in highly populated areas with good transport links and travel times. Birmingham and Liverpool have been included in every option in the review, and rightly so, but why has Leeds not been identified in the same way on the basis of those core principles?

Damian Hinds: The review document is called “Safe and Sustainable”, and that is absolutely the right title for it. It is worth repeating what has been said by every speaker today, and by the clinical leadership of the review: this is about saving lives, not about saving money. We must bear in mind the link between scale and quality and between quality and safety. The “scale” factor applies to the number of procedures per surgeon per year and to the number of surgeons per unit. The challenge was summed up best by the statement from the Royal College of Surgeons, to which the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) referred, that although the country has the right number of surgeons carrying out these complex operations, they are too thinly spread. Change is clearly needed.
	Coincidentally, in the last three weeks my family has had occasion to rely on the paediatric intensive care units and surgery at Southampton General hospital, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), where we benefited from outstanding care. This was not heart surgery, but the experience gave me plenty of cause to reflect on the value of not just convenience and location but, above all, quality of care. In such circumstances, families will do what they have to do, although it may be very difficult, and they will find a way of securing care of the highest quality. The experience also taught me something about the interconnection between services.
	All the criteria set out in the review document have a role to play, but in my view the most important criterion of all must be quality, and I do not think that that comes across as much as it should in the review. How can it, given that the centre that is ranked second out of the 11 in the country for quality appears in only one of the four options? The question also arises, in the context of Southampton General hospital, of whether—given
	the role of scale and quality—sufficient consideration has been given to the most recent trends since the suspension of paediatric cardiac surgery at the John Radcliffe hospital.
	Other factors have also not been given sufficient weight. First, there is the requirement for co-location of paediatric surgery with other essential services for children. Secondly, there is the impact on paediatric intensive care units, paediatric intensive care retrieval, and the other networks mentioned by the right hon. Member for Oxford East. Thirdly, there are the implications for services that provide longer-lasting care for people with cardiac conditions from birth to adulthood.
	Our objective must not be to stall or jam the process, because there is a need to reduce the number of centres. We must avoid the politician’s tendency to say that of course we agree with the general principles of the review, except in the particular circumstances that apply to our own constituency. I hope I have not done that, but I do think that Southampton has a particularly strong case based on the excellence of its clinical record. I strongly support the drive for us not to be restricted only to the four options in the review, considering the additional evidence that has come to light during its course.

Nigel Evans: To resume his seat at 3.32 pm, I call Mr Percy.

Andrew Percy: Outrageous, Mr Deputy Speaker! But obviously accepted.
	I associate myself with many of the comments of my fellow Yorkshire and the Humber MPs, particularly my near neighbour the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). I want to mention a couple of issues raised by our local health trust, which is opposing anything other than option D very strongly. Indeed, North Lincolnshire council’s scrutiny committee met to discuss the matter on Tuesday and similarly supports that option, which would help to maintain the Leeds unit. That is not simply because it is our local centre. My constituents have to travel a considerable distance to get to Leeds, as it is not exactly next door. It is okay for some of us, but it is quite some distance for my constituents over in Brigg, in particular.
	My constituents accept the regionalisation of health services when it is of proven benefit. That is so in the case of adult cardiac services, which are currently provided in Hull, and the same applies to children’s cardiac services. However, if we are to go down the route of regionalisation and big centres, it seems sensible to put services where the population is rather than try to move the population to where the clinicians are.
	I wish to quote a couple of points that my local health trust has made. It has stated:
	“Leeds has the largest population centre and therefore it is most sensible to ask fewer patients to travel the least distance”.
	As I said earlier, the conclusion of the North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was that it believed babies, children and families in North Lincolnshire would largely be disadvantaged in their access by the proposed changes.
	I am aware of the very short time available, so I cannot say most of what I would have liked to say, but my final point is that under the proposals we could end up in the rather odd situation that some of my constituents could be served by one centre and others by another. Given that they are all in the same health trust area, that could mean different services being provided to different constituents.

Nigel Evans: To speak for 10 minutes, I call the shadow Minister, Liz Kendall.

Liz Kendall: It is a real privilege to take part in today’s debate, and to follow the thoughtful, moving and at times passionate speeches of Members of all parties. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for securing the debate.
	Like the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), I wear two hats today. As the Member for Leicester West, home of Glenfield hospital’s superb congenital heart centre, I know how important the review of children’s heart surgery is for my constituents, as it is for those of each of the hon. Members who have spoken. As the Opposition spokesperson, however, I am also well aware of my national responsibility, and that of the House, to ensure that every child gets the very best quality of care.
	I want to start by making the case for change, as did other Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass), my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who made brave and courageous speeches.
	Following the devastating findings of the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry almost 10 years ago, clinicians and professional bodies have been clear that children’s heart services need to change to ensure that every child gets the best standard of care now, and crucially also in the future. They include the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery, the British Congenital Cardiac Association, the Paediatric Intensive Care Society and many others.
	The reason why services need to change is that children’s heart surgery is becoming ever more sophisticated. Technological advances mean that care is increasingly specialised and capable of saving more lives and improving outcomes for very sick children. However, services in England have grown up in an ad hoc manner. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, surgeons are too thinly spread. Care needs to be better planned to pool expertise in specialist centres so that all children get excellent quality care. I therefore welcome the Safe and Sustainable review, which was initiated by the previous Government. The challenge, as the House has rightly demonstrated today, is to ensure that the right aims, objectives and criteria drive the review, and, crucially, that they have the right weighting and that the right balance is struck.
	Of course, improving the quality of care must be our primary concern. The review rightly calls for fewer, larger surgical centres to provide 24/7 consultant cover,
	and seeks to ensure that surgeons treat a sufficient number of patients with a sufficient variety of problems to ensure that they have the best possible skills.
	The review also recommends the development of congenital heart networks, so that care is better co-ordinated at all stages of a child’s life, and that assessments and ongoing care can be provided closer to where patients live. However, as several hon. Members have said, the review cannot look at children’s heart surgery services in isolation; it must also fully consider the knock-on effect on other specialties at the hospitals in question.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth) and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) rightly said, the work of Glenfield children’s heart surgery centre is closely linked with its extra corporeal membrane oxygenation service. ECMO helps patients with reduced heart or lung functions to have complex surgery that they might not otherwise survive. Glenfield is the country’s leading specialist ECMO centre, and trains and supports other services nationally and internationally. There is real concern at the possibility that that service will be moved to another hospital, because of the time that it would take to build up expertise elsewhere. Not only does it take up to 18 months to train new specialist nurses, but it takes many years to develop equivalent experience.
	Ensuring high quality care is not just about surgery standards or links with other specialisms. The wider help and support that families get from doctors and nurses are vital. I was genuinely moved when hon. Members spoke of their conversations with parents and staff in their centres. Time and again, parents emphasise the communication skills of staff, and their ability to explain diagnoses and procedures simply and clearly, at what is often a frightening and worrying time.
	Parents at Glenfield tell me that staff are like members of their families—they can ring day or night if they have any concerns. Such familiarity and trust is crucial, and it links to the issue of providing ongoing help and support, which many hon. Members mentioned. When children who have had heart surgery grow up, they have to deal with difficult issues such as whether they can have children. Many families are understandably concerned about having to build new relationships with a different team of doctors and nurses if their local centre closes. It is vital that the review look closely at the links between child and adult congenital heart services, but it has probably paid insufficient attention to that so far. I hope and believe that that will change before the review concludes.
	As well as stressing the importance of the quality of clinical care, many hon. Members stressed the importance of ensuring fair access to services. We heard passionate speeches about that from my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). Accessibility matters, because time is of the essence when seriously ill children need to get to heart surgery centres in life-or-death situations, as the hon. Members for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) and for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) rightly said.
	However, travel times also matter to families who need ongoing care and support. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham rightly said that many parents would travel to the ends of the earth for their children, but as the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Oxford West
	and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) said, making families travel further than they already travel would make such a difficult time even harder for them, especially if they must also hold down a job or care for other children.
	The difficult balance between specialising services in some areas but ensuring fair access is the crucial issue for the review.

Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Lady is making an important point about access being one of the quality characteristics that need to be taken into account in making these decisions. However, does she agree that the Safe and Sustainable work programme has taken that into account? It was one of the key factors it took into account in making its recommendations and drawing its conclusions on the relative merits of these units.

Liz Kendall: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but hon. Members have said that they feel the issue was given insufficient weighting. At the Leicester consultation, one parent said to me, “If we’d known that all the services were safe”, as the review has said, “we might have placed more importance on the issue.”
	The affordability issue has not been mentioned. Hon. Members will, I am sure, be as one in saying that the review must be driven by the need to improve the quality of care, not by reducing costs. However, it is important to recognise, particularly in these financially constrained times, that significant costs are associated with all the current, and likely future, options in the review. That needs to be taken into account.
	In conclusion, changing how we provide any hospital service is difficult, but when changes are necessary to improve patient care, as I believe they are for children’s congenital heart services, the House must have the courage to make them happen. Hon. Members have rightly raised a range of concerns on behalf of their constituents, but I am sure we would all agree that the final decision must be made by clinicians on the basis of evidence, not on political considerations. I hope that the joint committee will seriously consider the points raised in this debate and then make final recommendations in patients’ best interests.

Stuart Andrew: I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which I think all will agree has been very good and knowledgeable. Members have spoken passionately in favour of their units. The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass) spoke passionately in favour of the Freeman hospital. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), for Poole (Mr Syms), for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), for Winchester (Mr Brine), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke in favour of Southampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) spoke for the Royal Brompton—I do not think I am going to get through all these.
	The fact is that this debate has got to the heart of the matter. We have discussed the issues that parents and patients have been talking about, but also the concerns that clinicians have been talking about. It is important that we hear those. We heard concerns that if this review does not happen, there could be another Bristol baby tragedy. However, it was reassuring to hear that the units we have are safe. We just need to make them sustainable.
	In conclusion, this has been a most excellent debate. I am sure that the Safe and Sustainable team have been listening to Members on both sides of the House. Above all, what has been brilliant about the debate has been the reassurance from the Minister that the Safe and Sustainable review is now flexible over the options and should be flexible over the number of units. That will mean a lot to the people who have been campaigning so hard on this issue, and it shows that a Backbench Business debate can work and make a real difference.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the review led by the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts into the reconfiguration of children’s heart surgery; welcomes its aim of establishing a more sustainable provision of congenital cardiac services in England which has strong support from professional associations and patient groups; notes that concerns have been expressed during consultation on the proposals; calls on the review to take full account of accurate assessed travel and population projections, the views of ethnic minority communities affected, evidence supporting the co-location of children’s services, and the need for patients and their families to access convenient services; and therefore calls on the Joint Committee not to restrict itself to the four options outlined in the review but instead to consider further options in making its final recommendations.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Nigel Evans: I have to announce that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Mark Pritchard: I beg to move,
	That this House directs the Government to use its powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to introduce a regulation banning the use of all wild animals in circuses to take effect by 1 July 2012.
	I would like to record my thanks to all the members of the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to raise this important issue. I would also like to thank the Clerks for all their helpful advice and assistance in preparation for today’s debate.
	It has been an interesting few days. It remains a mystery why the Government have mounted such a concerted operation to stop a vote on this motion, or indeed a vote on any amendment that would allow a ban on wild animals in circuses. I was flexible on amendments.

Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mark Pritchard: I am going to take only two interventions, but all right.

Denis MacShane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that he and his Conservative colleagues who are in favour of helping the lions and the tigers have been put under pressure not just by the lance corporals of the Whips Office, but directly from No. 10, the heart of Government? What is it with our Prime Minister that he should have no affection for the lions and tigers waiting to be released from caged imprisonment?

Mark Pritchard: All I can say is that 64% of Members of this House support a ban on wild animals in circuses. I cannot speak for the Prime Minister; he can speak for himself.
	It has been an interesting week. This is a Government who have said from the outset that they want to reassert the authority of Parliament. This is a Government who have said that they want to listen to people. Some 92% of the British public want a ban on wild animals in circuses. More than 200 Members of this House have signed an early-day motion supporting a ban, and in a YouGov poll for Dods, 64% of Members of this House said that they want a ban, so why are the Government not listening to the will of this House and, more importantly, the will of the people?

Don Foster: On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Government wanting to reassert the importance of this House, will he explain why they still appear to be claiming that Europe could somehow intervene and prevent us from acting? Will he also confirm that the relevant commissioner said only a few days ago that responsibility for the welfare of circus animals remains in this country, with this House?

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend makes an accurate and pertinent point, which, if I may, I would like to address later.
	I want to focus on the interesting past few days. On Monday, in return for amending my motion, dropping it or not calling a vote on it—and we are not talking about a major defence issue, an economic issue or public sector reform; we are talking about the ban on wild animals in circuses—I was offered a reward, an incentive. If I had amended my motion and not called for a ban, I would have been offered a job. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Not as a Minister, so those who are competing should not panic. It was a pretty trivial job, like most of the ones I have had—at least, probably, until 30 minutes from now. I was offered incentive and reward on Monday, and then it was ratcheted, until last night, when I was threatened. I had a call from the Prime Minister’s office directly. I was told that the Prime Minister himself had said that unless I withdrew this motion, he would look upon it very dimly indeed.
	Well, I have a message for the Whips and for the Prime Minister of our country—I did not pick a fight with the Prime Minister of our country, but I have a message. I might be just a little council house lad from a very poor background, but that background gives me a backbone, it gives me a thick skin, and I am not going to kowtow to the Whips or even the Prime Minister of my country on an issue that I feel passionately about and on which I have conviction. There might be some people with other backbones in this place, on our side and the other side, who will speak later, but we need a generation of politicians with a bit of spine, not jelly. I will not be bullied by any of the Whips. This is an issue on which I have campaigned for many years. In the previous Parliament I had an Adjournment debate and I spoke in the passage of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I have consistently campaigned on this issue, and I will not kowtow to unnecessary, disproportionate pressure.

Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Pritchard: I am sorry, but I am afraid that I cannot give way because I have very limited time, although I am sure that it would have been a wonderful intervention from my hon. Friend, as they usually are.
	The fact is that we are now in a place that I hoped we could have avoided. I tried to co-operate. Even last night in the Lobby, I spoke to the Whips and said, “Perhaps we can amend the motion”—

Angie Bray: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Are we actually going to get on to the substance of the debate at any point, rather than discussing my hon. Friend’s—[ Interruption. ]

Nigel Evans: Order. I know that Mr Pritchard is now going to move on to the substance of the motion before the House.

Denis MacShane: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there anything more important than a Member of this House being allowed to speak as he wishes and not being threatened and intimidated? This goes to the heart of what we should be debating.

Nigel Evans: We are here today to debate the motion before the House and that is exactly what we are now going to do.

Mark Pritchard: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Today, this country has three travelling circuses with a total of 39 wild animals, including zebras, tigers, lions and camels. Until the recent exposure of the brutality with which Annie the elephant was treated, there were also elephants, but there are now no elephants in circuses in England. Let us remember that this measure applies to England only. I give credit to the Scottish National party for possibly moving towards a ban in Scotland.
	The trouble with the Government’s proposed licensing scheme is that it would create a new generation of animals that could be imported. It would give a green light to new imports. We might not have any elephants left in our circuses now, but we would certainly have some if the new licensing regime came into effect. My concern is shared by 92% of the public, and there are very few public policy areas that attract that support. I am concerned about the cruel and cramped conditions in the housing and transportation of these wild animals. Countries including Singapore, Bolivia, Israel and Hungary have banned the use of wild animals in circuses. Many of those circuses are commercially successful. I should also like to pay tribute to the media, especially The Independent and the Sunday Express, which have campaigned on the issue for many years.
	I want to address the specifics of the Government’s proposal for licensing. It is well intentioned, but it will not improve animal welfare. It would be difficult to monitor, implement and enforce. The licensing regime would also be very costly; it could cost taxpayers more than £1 million. An unintended consequence of the regime could be inadvertently to legitimise the import of new animals and continue the use and, I believe, exploitation of wild animals in circuses. Are colleagues really prepared to vote for that today?
	Some of my colleagues have quite legitimately approached me to say, “I don’t really believe in banning things.” I take a similar approach, but I like to look at each case on its merits and take each issue case by case. If we followed the logic that we do not like to ban anything, the House would not have banned bear-baiting, badger-baiting or dog fighting. Perhaps we would also not have banned carrying knives in a public place, or even slavery.
	Some myths have been put about prior to this debate. It has been said that passing this motion would result in the end of zoos. That is not right; the motion would not affect zoos. It has also been claimed that it would put an end to falconry, but that is not right either. It would not affect falconry. It relates only to wild animals, some of which I have listed. The definition of a wild animal is a species that does not originate in the British isles.
	Concern has also been expressed in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the effect of the motion on the entertainment industry. I reassure the House that it would not have an impact on the film and television industries. Paragraphs 34 and 37 of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ regulatory impact assessment state that travelling circus animals are entirely different from those kept in static locations by private keepers. I hope that with the advancement of digital technology, there will eventually be an end to the use of wild animals in films and on TV because when they are not being used many of these animals are warehoused like a carton of vegetables.
	I shall concentrate primarily on the legal issues. Notwithstanding the Government’s written ministerial statement of 13 May and the subsequent revised Government response on 19 May to an urgent question, I hope that the Government will accept that there are no legitimate outstanding legal impediments to prevent a ban in England.

Angela Smith: rose —

Mark Pritchard: Forgive me, but I am not giving way. I know that the hon. Lady has a long track record on this issue, but I am pressed for time.
	If Mr Speaker had selected the amendment this morning, which is relevant to this point, it would have kicked this motion into the long grass and there would have been no ban on the use of wild animals because we would have had to wait, as a country, for other legal cases to be dealt with in other parts of Europe. That, in itself, is a red herring.
	In his statement to the House last month, the Minister told Parliament, at column 497, that a court case “against the Austrian Government” would “commence shortly”, given that the Austrian Government wanted to introduce a ban. I understand that the papers have now finally been submitted to the court in Vienna, but there is no live case. Interestingly, despite outright bans in other EU countries—I have already listed some and I could add Greece and Luxembourg—a legal case has never been brought or won before. It is not uncommon to hear of Governments sheltering behind courts in Brussels or Strasbourg, but to hear Ministers in my own Front-Bench team say that this Government are now sheltering behind a domestic court in Vienna is a completely new innovation.
	There are two further flaws in the Government’s so-called legal defence. Are the Government of this country suggesting that the threat of legal action or the possible outcome of court cases is enough to paralyse Government decision making? Fear is not usually a prerequisite to success. What is more, the Government are seeking to put Vienna before the courts in London. If the Government waited for the court case in Vienna— the papers have been submitted, as I said—the case went through and the European Circus Association lost, there would be an automatic appeal to the European Court. That would add more delay and procrastination, further getting the Government off the hook when it comes to introducing a ban in this country. Even if that case were spent, there could be another European court considering another case in another European capital.
	Notwithstanding my comments, the reality is that the Government’s Austrian defence is a red herring, given that the European Commission has clearly stated that a ban is a matter for member states alone. It is an issue that English courts decide. Surely that is something to celebrate in this age of judicial creep from Europe, and also something to exercise and implement. A ban can be introduced in an English court— without waiting for other European capitals to decide and without interference from Europe, which makes a refreshing change.
	The Government have invoked the Human Rights Act 1998—yes, that old chestnut. The sooner the Government scrap the Act and introduce a British Bill
	of Rights, the better for everyone. Let us test the Act in an English domestic court, where even Brussels wants such cases heard. Let the Government have the courage of their own convictions. Legal advice from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself suggests that a ban might breach circus owners’ property rights under the Human Rights Act, so let us test it in the courts. Let us see what the courts have to say—the courts in London and England, not in Vienna, Brussels, Strasbourg, Copenhagen or some other European capital.
	I pay tribute to the Minister of State, who has been put in a very difficult position. On 19 May, he courageously and bravely told this House that he personally would like to see a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. We also know that officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs want a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, and it is reported that the Secretary of State herself is minded to favour a ban, yet No. 10 has overruled: so much for devolving power and allowing Departments to get on with their own business, and so much for ending the control-freakery of No. 10; it appears that that tendency under the last Government is continuing under this one.
	The Government have also invoked the European services directive, saying that a ban would breach it and would fail to meet the proportionality legal test. I can tell the House that that is not the case, and that the European Commission has denied that it is the case.
	I appeal to the House to support my motion. Let us get Britain back to where it was in the last century—leading, rather than lagging behind, the world on animal welfare issues—and let us put an end to the use of wild animals in circuses.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. There is a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. As is apparent from the number of Members rising to be called to speak, this is a very popular debate.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), and I congratulate him. I do not imagine that he is in the running for his Chief Whip’s Back-Bencher of the month award, and he might have to wait a wee while before receiving further invitations to receptions at No. 10, but he is showing great tenacity and determination in keeping this issue alive in Parliament, and in bringing it to the attention of the House today, with the able assistance of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate.
	Some people may not consider this issue to be of major political consequence, but it means a great deal to a lot of people, as evidenced by the thousands of responses to last year’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation, by the number of people signing The Independent newspaper’s petition, by the hundreds of MPs who have signed the relevant early-day motions, and by the e-mails and letters MPs have been receiving not just in the last few days, but over the past 14 months.
	I should declare an interest: I was the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister who left this matter to the current Minister of State, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), to sort out, and I apologise to him for that. I am sure he would rather be concentrating on other matters, but he is a highly respected politician of integrity, and I know he will take note of today’s debate and vote.

Tony Baldry: As the hon. Gentleman had ministerial responsibility for this issue under the last Government, may I ask him a question? In the last Parliament, we spent a lot of time debating the Bill that became the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and we were told that it was the most up-to-date legislation in the world. Therefore, if there is a concern about animal welfare, why is it not covered by the provisions of that Act?

Jim Fitzpatrick: That is a good question, and I will discuss the 2006 Act in due course. It is my understanding that that Act could be used as the enabling legislation to introduce a ban, and I hope that my later remarks on it will clarify the situation for the hon. Gentleman.
	When I took over as Minister of State in 2009, the question of wild animals in circuses had been left over from the 2006 Act. That Act was much needed and warmly welcomed and took animal welfare to a much better place, but wild animals in circuses were not specifically covered. I was lobbied by the Born Free Foundation, as well as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Animal Defenders International, and also by many Members. DEFRA organised a consultation, and we all know the outcome: 94.5% of the 13,000 respondents said they wanted a ban. The then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), agreed that we should express our conclusions before last May’s election and we said we were minded to introduce a ban.
	Recently, there has been much comment about legal impediments. The European Circus Association challenged the Austrian ban at the European Commission in 2006, and it lost. It invoked the European ombudsman and it lost. The ombudsman asked the Commission to evaluate whether the Austrian ban on wild animals in circuses was proportionate. The Commission’s final opinion of September 2009, as laid out in the documents available in the Library pack for today’s debate, set out why it did not believe there were grounds for an accusation of maladministration and also set out its view on the proportionality of the Austrian ban. It ruled that this was a matter for member states to decide.
	Much advice was offered to me when I was a Minister, but my recollection is that the legal questions were about whether a ban would require primary or secondary legislation. I do not remember there being a European dimension to the advice, but of course memory does play tricks on us.

John Leech: The hon. Gentleman was a good Minister, but does he regret that he did not introduce a ban in his time as a Minister?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I regret that we as a Labour Government did not introduce a ban, but the Animal Welfare Act was a major piece of legislation and we tried our best. Given the constraints and the time frame between when I was appointed Minister of State and the May 2010
	election, there was not long enough to introduce that ban. However we gave a commitment to the animal welfare lobby, to parliamentary colleagues and to the public that we were minded to introduce a ban if we were re-elected, which sadly we were not. I am convinced that we would have gone ahead with that.
	The biggest obstacle to progress that I can remember, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for The Wrekin, was at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which contended that any such ban could harm our creative industries by outlawing the use of animals in film and TV productions at worst or by reducing the number of performing animals available at best. Either way, the contention was that the threat to film and TV production would move it abroad and cost us jobs and revenue. We had numerous discussions about this and we were eventually able to reassure DCMS that that would not be the case and that we could limit the ban to the use of wild animals in circuses, as the hon. Gentleman has outlined. DCMS dropped its objection and the Government had a united policy, which appeared in our manifesto in May last year.
	All kinds of questions were raised about whether wild animals should perform at all and which should be allowed to. My main concern was and is about the conditions in which animals are kept in venues and on the road. We are mostly reassured that modern zoos create environments that try to reflect animals’ origins, natural habitat and behaviour patterns, and we have to ask how that can be done in the back of a cage attached to a lorry driving along the motorways of Britain. Even this morning on BBC “Breakfast”, the camera crew visiting a circus was not allowed to film the animals’ living quarters. I think that that speaks volumes. Why the reluctance? I think we all know.
	The Government say they want to introduce a licensing system rather than a ban. The system would mean that any circuses wishing to have wild animals such as tigers, lions and elephants performing in them would need to demonstrate that they met high animal welfare standards for each animal before they could be granted a licence to keep them. Areas being considered as part of the licensing conditions include the rules on transporting animals, the type of quarters they could be kept in, including winter quarters, and their treatment by trainers and keepers.
	I know from my time at DEFRA that it wants to improve the welfare of animals across the piece and to improve the situation. It has even been suggested by some that the licensing regime could introduce a ban by the back door, but we do not want a ban by the back door—we want a ban through the front door. We want honesty and transparency in the laws and regulations we debate and introduce. We want clarity, not confusion. The public have used their voice to articulate that they want a ban and Members of every party have said that they want a ban. I hope and appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House when it comes to the vote at 6 o’clock tonight to support the motion in the names of the hon. Members for The Wrekin, for Colchester and myself.

Andrew Rosindell: Animal welfare matters to the British people, but we in the House have a duty and responsibility to make decisions on issues
	relating to animal welfare based on facts, knowledge and science. If we make decisions based purely on opinion polls and emotions, we shall get ourselves into great difficulty. I heard nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) about the actual welfare of animals.

Mark Pritchard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Rosindell: I will give way in a moment.
	We have to base our decisions on cool hard facts and knowledge of the situation. The speeches I have heard today do not show that; they have avoided the real animal welfare issues and are pandering to the emotions of animal rights activists who care more about their political agenda than about the real welfare of animals.
	I condemn utterly and totally cruelty to animals of any kind. I was the shadow Minister for animal welfare for three years before the last election, and I had the same instincts as many people in the Chamber today and many of the people who respond to opinion polls, when they say, “Isn’t it dreadful. It should be banned. How awful this is.”

Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Rosindell: May I make some progress before I give way?
	Instead of basing my views purely on what the newspapers or the opinion polls say, I looked into the matter. The truth is that in this country only a small number of animals are in circuses: 39 in total. They are not captured from the jungle and dragged to the circus; many have been born and bred in circuses for generations. [ Interruption. ] Their entire rhythm of life is based—

Mark Pritchard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Rosindell: Not at the moment.
	For those animals, their entire rhythm of life is based on what they have known since they were born. On the face of it—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Andrew Rosindell: May I continue?
	On the face of it, I agree that it looks to many people as though it is all very cruel, but in reality many of those animals have been so domesticated over so many years that to wrench them from the life they are used to would be crueller than allowing them to continue it. The Government have to implement welfare and we already have the Animal Welfare Act 2006. If there is real cruelty to animals, we can use existing legislation or, as the Government propose, licensing to deal with it. [ Interruption. ]It is amazing that we are focusing on an area where there is almost no cruelty—[Hon. Members: “There is.”] There isn’t. [ Interruption. ] No one wants to hear the facts—[ Interruption. ] They don’t.
	I am fed up with animals being used as a political football. If Members want to campaign for animal welfare, they should look at the facts, examine the
	reality and not use it to promote a political agenda. I am afraid to say that certain animal welfare organisations—
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Mr Rosindell is not giving way, so persistent requests are not helping the situation. I am sure he will let the House know when he is ready to take an intervention.

Andrew Rosindell: I should like to take interventions, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am being shouted down, which is not very fair, especially from a Green MP—I should have thought that she would want to hear the other point of view.
	I am a champion for animal welfare, but I shall not just follow the crowd. I shall look at the facts. What is being proposed is worse than those poor animals are used to; their entire life has been in the environment they were brought up in. Wrenching them away from the people who have looked after them, loved them and cared for them would obliterate their rhythm of life and would be crueller than allowing it to continue. I shall now give way.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants science. What about the science from the British Veterinary Association, which says:
	“the welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus…A licensing scheme will not address these issues”?
	The BVA is one of the most respected scientific organisations for animal welfare in this country. What does he say to that?

Andrew Rosindell: Non-domesticated—they are wild animals, but when lions and tigers are 10th generation born in that environment, we are no longer talking about a lion taken out of its natural environment and dragged into the circus. I am afraid to say that the issue is often used by organisations for fundraising. Charities and animal rights groups raise money, and the issue is raised to attract political support and donations, by whipping up emotions instead of treating the facts as they are.

Mark Pritchard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Rosindell: No, I will not.
	We have the Animal Welfare Act 2006—a brilliant piece of legislation from the last Government, which we supported—and it can be used when cruelty occurs, but I appeal to the House: do not go with the crowd, look at the facts, do not wrench those creatures away from the life that they are used to and have grown up in. If you do that, you will be more cruel than leaving them where they are, with the people and in the environment that they are used to.

Stephen Phillips: Will my hon. Friend share with the House his views on whether third-generation slaves in the United States, born into slavery, were content with slavery, more so than those who were enslaved in the first place?

Andrew Rosindell: I am afraid to say that I am sorry that the debate is being dragged to such a level. Instead of dealing with the facts, you are ultimately saying that animals—

Nigel Evans: Order. Once again, I can see that emotions are running high, but I remind the House that when you say, “you”, you mean me.

Andrew Rosindell: I knew that my views would be unpopular, but I ask hon. Members perhaps to take something away from what I am saying, because I believe passionately in animal welfare. I looked at this for three years. I visited circuses. I spoke to people who deal with training the animals, and I know that they are loved and cared for. This is like a pack hunting a tiny bit of tradition that still exists in this country, where animal welfare standards are greatly considered and animals are loved and cared for. I am afraid to say that, if we rush to make a decision based on pure emotion and opinion polls, I really think that it will be an irresponsible decision. We should look at the facts. We should understand the long-term interests of animal welfare and use existing legislation to deal with this issue.

Jim Dowd: That contribution can best be described idiosyncratic, or idiotic, depending on the point of view taken. To say that it is not about the welfare of animals is either a display of stupidity that is quite mind-numbing or a deliberate attempt not to face up to the heart of the issue. As the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said in opening the debate, this is entirely about animal welfare. Only about 40 or so animals are involved—there are various numbers; perhaps it is 36 or 37—but the numbers do not matter. What matters is cruelty.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, in the absence my having been able to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful not to be too harsh on my hon. Friend, who wrote the foreword in 2009 for the Great British Circus and previous forewords as well. Perhaps that is why he would not allow me to intervene.

Jim Dowd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; I suspect that he might be on to something.
	I am puzzled because this is a relatively minor issue: as I say, somewhere between 36 and 40 animals are involved. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) quoted the British Veterinary Association. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) did not grasp the difference between domesticated and captive animals. Captive animals may still be wild and nowhere near domesticated. Even until the nth generation, they remain wild and their instincts are those of wild creatures. The British Veterinary Association said that in captivity in circuses, there are no circumstances under which such animals can demonstrate their natural behaviour. That will remain the case, regardless of a regulatory scheme. The big disadvantage of a regulatory scheme is that it would be a more complicated way of dealing
	with the matter and it would be much more likely to increase, not reduce, the number of wild animals being used in circuses.

Chuka Umunna: I have received a huge number of e-mails and correspondence from constituents about this matter. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), whom I congratulate on having initiated the debate, mentioned how the conditions in which the animals are kept adversely affect them. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) referred to facts. The usual life expectancy of animals kept in such conditions is much shorter than that of animals not kept in those conditions.

Jim Dowd: Indeed. The hon. Member for Romford was being most disingenuous or misinformed, depending on one’s point of view, in saying that there was not a body of evidence based on animal welfare considerations that supports the ban. The argument in favour of a ban is entirely predicated on that. He may not have understood the evidence, but that does not mean it does not exist.

Julian Huppert: As a scientist I am very interested in evidence. Could the hon. Gentleman spot what the facts were that we were being asked to listen to by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)? I missed all those, whereas the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) seemed to cite facts that were much more interesting.

Jim Dowd: The hon. Gentleman has it exactly right. The speech of the hon. Member for Romford would bear rereading, as they say. Perhaps we can have a prize for anyone who can mine a single fact out of it—but please do not send that to me.
	The hon. Member for The Wrekin, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), I and Brian Blessed, among others, were over at Downing street towards the end of March to hand in a letter calling for the ban to be introduced. I know that there are those on the Government Benches who are ideologically opposed to bans of any kind, which is a strange position, but it is understandable. Parliament and the whole body of law is about bans of one kind or another designed to change people’s behaviour in different ways. A law says, “If you behave in a certain way, there will be certain consequences,” but no law can ever make people better. What it can say is that there are patterns of behaviour and conduct which are acceptable and there are those which are not. Cruelty to animals is one of those considerations.

Dave Watts: Is it not a fact that zoos have spent a great deal of money doing the research to find out what sort of facilities should be made available for the sort of animals that we are discussing? Clearly, travelling circuses cannot provide such facilities.

Jim Dowd: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. When we speak to those involved with zoos and aquariums, it is clear that they are looking carefully at the kind of animals that they will and will not exhibit. Large mammals and large carnivores are very much at the top of their considerations.
	As just about every Member knows, animal welfare is one of the most persistent issues raised with us by our constituents over time. From the 19 years that I have been in the House, I have a database running into many thousands of people who have raised various issues with me. People feel very strongly about these issues, and rightly so. It is the hallmark of a civilised nation that it has the highest possible animal welfare standards, and I still believe this to be a civilised nation. There is a maxim that suggests that the hottest corner of hell is reserved for those who are cruel to children and animals, and in that regard, despite being a life-long atheist, I hope that there is a hell.
	Constituents raise concerns with us because they care about them. For the hon. Member for Romford—I do not want to concentrate on his contribution, but it really was quite extraordinary—to describe the entire pantheon of animal welfare organisations, many of which have royal charters and have been around for decades, if not centuries, as part of some kind of trendy conspiracy invented simply to please Guardian readers is ludicrous.
	I accept that the Minister is in a difficult situation, and he has made his personal opinion clear. What I cannot understand—the hon. Member for The Wrekin alluded to this—is why the Government have handled such a relatively straightforward issue in this fashion. The idea of No. 10 getting personally involved in such as issue shows a curious lack of proportion. It also appears curious when tested against the idea that the Government are now listening and that listening is a sign of strength.

Mark Pritchard: I am pleased to announce that the coalition Government, certainly on the Conservative side, have heard the voice of the British people, seen sense and will now allow a free vote on the matter.

Jim Dowd: Well, there are free votes and there are free votes. To paraphrase George Orwell, some of them are more free than others. There is a great deal more to be said on the matter, but unfortunately not by me. I urge Members to support the motion.

Matthew Offord: I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate, but I find it rather sad that we are still talking about this issue after so much time. DEFRA officials said in 2009 that the ban could be introduced under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We went wrong when the Minister of State commented recently that a total ban on wild animals in circuses might be seen as disproportionate under the EU services directive and under our own Human Rights Act 1998. I must say that, on that point, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). Having had some contact with the Whips in the past week, I have become quite an expert on the Human Rights Act and particularly knowledgeable on article 8 of the convention.
	With regard to the European Court’s case law, it is difficult to envisage a cogent argument that could support the assertion that a ban would engage the other rights set out in the convention, such as the rights to life and
	to a fair trail. Therefore, I can only presume that the Minister made his comments while considering a ban under article 8.
	Article 8(1) has been interpreted extremely broadly by the European Court, whereas exemptions or limitations to the right have been interpreted narrowly. The right has three potentially relevant elements: private life, family life and home. Private life has been held to include the right to develop one’s own personality and relationships with others. The European Court considered that the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of the right.
	However, the right has been held not to apply to activities that relate to the private aspects of a person’s life, such as those that take place in public and where there is no expectation of privacy. In the current situation, a ban relates not to the private aspects of the lives of those potentially affected, but to their employment, which essentially takes place in public and without the expectation of privacy. Equally, the ban would not affect the right to a family life, as it would not prevent or interfere with a person living in proximity to their family.
	Finally, the concept of home under the convention is wide and would include travelling accommodation as well as permanent dwellings.

James Paice: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about article 8 of the convention, but at no time have I referred to it. If he had read what I said, he would know that I referred to article 1.

Matthew Offord: I am happy to stand corrected by the Minister. That allows me to move my argument on.
	Another argument is that a ban on animals in circuses would interfere with a person’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions because it would amount to a control on how those possessions may be used, but such an interference with that right would not violate the right if it were done in the public interest. I therefore urge the Minister to consider a ban in that public interest.
	The European Courts have decided that, whether or not the control on possessions imposed by a ban is in the public interest, they will have regard to whether a ban represents a fair balance between the needs of the public interest and the rights of the individual. In other words, I tell the Minister that the European Courts will consider whether a total ban is a proportionate measure to achieve the public interest aim in question.
	Accordingly, it is important to consider why exactly a ban is required in the public interest. If a total ban is proposed to ensure that animals are kept in appropriate conditions and cared for by appropriately qualified persons, there is an argument that, unlike the proposed licensing and inspection regime, a ban is not proportionate to the public interest aim being pursued. If a total ban is proposed because it is considered cruel or ethically wrong to make wild animals perform in circuses in the UK, however, a total ban is the only measure that will achieve that public aim.
	Accordingly, if Parliament determines that wild animals performing in circuses is no longer acceptable to the public, it will therefore be in the public interest to have a
	ban on the use of such animals. The European Courts would be very unlikely to question the judgment of this House as to what is in the public interest of the United Kingdom.

Tracey Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the UK more than 200 local authorities have bans on animals in circuses, and that more than two thirds of those bans are on all performing animals, the remainder being on wild animals? Is he aware also of any ongoing court cases under human rights legislation?

Matthew Offord: I am certainly not aware of any cases under human rights legislation, and the situation involves not just 200 local authorities, but countries and principalities in countries, including Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. All those countries have to decided to take that suggested approach, yet we are once again kowtowing to the European Courts.

Simon Hart: On human rights, does my hon. Friend accept that it takes only one person to challenge this decision in order to delay for a number of years the process that every Member seems to want, whereas sensible regulation would achieve the same aims over a much shorter time?

Matthew Offord: I suggest, as others have already urged, that we take a lead on the matter. As I have said, I have had some experience with the Human Rights Act this week, but when people use it they find that many in officialdom bow down and decide that, suddenly, it is a very important issue and that those people will get away with what they are trying to achieve.
	In summary, case law from the European Court of Human Rights indicates that a ban would be within the “margin of appreciation” afforded to the United Kingdom. If a ban is proposed because it is considered cruel or ethically wrong in itself to make wild animals perform in circuses in the United Kingdom, as opposed to a ban being proposed because welfare standards cannot be guaranteed, then a ban is the only measure that will achieve that public interest aim and is therefore automatically proportionate.
	Accordingly, a ban will not breach the European convention on human rights, and as a ban is only a control on the use of wild animals in circuses and therefore does not deprive the owner of the animal itself or of their ability to use it for commercial purposes, there is a strong presumption against compensation being awarded to persons who suffer any loss as a result of the ban. If the Government decide to implement a ban, it will not be as revolutionary as we have heard, given the 200 local authorities and the other countries that have been mentioned.
	I do not believe that animals should be subjected to the conditions of circus life. Regular transport, cramped and bare temporary housing, forced training and performance, loud noises and crowds of people are all typical and often unavoidable realities for such animals. Therefore, unless the Government give us a time frame for a ban on animals in circuses, I will vote for the motion.

Nia Griffith: We have already heard many comments from many colleagues, so I will not repeat what has been said. I rise in support of the motion, which
	“directs the Government to use its powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to introduce a regulation banning the use of all wild animals in circuses”.
	I had the privilege of serving on the Animal Welfare Bill Committee back in 2006. The Bill became an excellent Act with many good measures asking people to think carefully. It was good in terms of introducing codes and saying that animal welfare really matters. During that Committee’s proceedings, however, I raised the issue of banning the use of wild animals in circuses, and I would have liked to have seen a much slicker process in the Bill to progress the matter at that time.
	Matters have progressed, however. The consultation that the Labour Government instigated in 2009 showed that public opinion is even more clearly behind a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses than it was back in 2006, with 94.5% of people saying that they would support it. It is therefore a great shame that we did not have the time to introduce that ban before the election, after which the coalition Government chose to disregard public opinion by not proceeding with introducing it.
	It is extraordinary that the smokescreen of the European Union has been put up as an excuse for not introducing the ban, because as was explained earlier, the Commissioner has clarified the position and there is absolutely no obstacle whatsoever in the way of our doing so. The European Union does not prevent us from doing this.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is to be commended for the work that she has done on animal welfare in the last Parliament and in this one. Is it not the case that all that is required to bring in the ban is secondary legislation using the existing provisions in the 2006 Act—a very simple process?

Nia Griffith: Indeed; my hon. Friend has clarified the position. It is very straightforward. It can be achieved because of the groundwork that was done during the first stages of the Animal Welfare Bill.
	Evidence from local councils over very many years shows that when given the opportunity many local councillors, rather than trying to ban the use of animals, have said that circuses are not allowed to come on to their land to perform because they want to make the point and respond to public opinion. We do not want a messy licensing situation whereby this, that and the other has to be done and the situation is unclear to everybody—we want a simple, straightforward ban.

Andrew George: I am sure that there will be party political points to be scored throughout the debate; I congratulate those who have called it. Does the hon. Lady accept, however, that there is a gathering consensus, with the Government’s body language since the announcement on 13 May indicating that there is a growing preference in Government for a ban?

Nia Griffith: We want a definitive decision to be taken today. We want that decision to go in favour of a ban, and we want that ban to be implemented without
	any further delays of any sort whatsoever. The consultation clearly indicates where public opinion stands and the reasons why. I am not going to keep listing the terrible instances of cruelty that we have heard about. Even if there were no deliberate cruelty, it is clear to anybody that the lifestyle of always popping in and out of a cage and performing and travelling is not something that anybody could possibly understand as the way that a wild animal would be expected to behave.
	On the business about 10 generations, even in the case of our own cats and dogs who may be 10 generations domesticated, we have cat flaps and take dogs for walks. We certainly do not expect them to live the life of popping in and out of a cage and being isolated from other members of their species and taken right of their environment. That is clearly incompatible with their natural way of life. There are many opportunities for young people to see how animals can live in the wild using hidden cameras. We have experts and naturalists who produce fabulous films. We can click on our computers and see it all. We can go to a safari park, without having to travel abroad, to see animals who can be kept in certain ways in this country.

Angela Smith: Have we not come to expect, as a society, that animals should live in their natural environment and should not have to exist for the benefit of human beings and their entertainment?

Nia Griffith: Absolutely. It is a purely selfish idea that anybody would want to see an animal perform in a circus. As my hon. Friend says, we have moved on from that. It is completely mediaeval to think of going back to the idea that an animal is to be taken round on a chain because nobody in the area or in the country has ever had a chance to see that type of animal. We do not want that any more.
	There are many important lessons that we want to teach our young people. They will not learn the fundamental lesson about respect for animals and treating them properly and well if they are taken to a circus to see such antics. Young people have to understand that for them to see such things, animals have to travel and undergo very undesirable practices. Animal welfare is incompatible with the life of a travelling circus.

Bob Stewart: I have personal experience of a wild animal. I found a bear in a cage in no man’s land. He had been left there for four weeks without water. He was entirely miserable and would not even be coaxed out of his cage by honey. We managed to ethnically cleanse that bear out of Bosnia and into Croatia. He is now a very happy bear who is full of life and living in Amsterdam zoo, which is great. I fully support the idea of banning animals in cages, because it would stop that sort of thing.

Nia Griffith: As I have said, society has moved on. We do not expect to see the cruelty of animals being kept in circuses in this day and age.
	We want this ban to be sorted out in the most efficient way for the whole country, not in little bits and pieces or through half measures. We want a proper ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. As I have said,
	there are many other ways in which young people can be educated about animals. They do not need to see cruelty to animals in the circus. I fully support the motion. I congratulate the Members who called for this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it.

John Leech: I am delighted to speak on this incredibly important motion, and I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this debate. It is fair to say that I do not always agree with him, but I recognise his strong commitment to animal welfare, which I share.
	Hon. Members had the opportunity to debate banning wild animals in circuses in a Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on 8 June. I am delighted that we now have the opportunity to debate it on the Floor of the House and to vote on it. I make it clear that I will be voting for the motion. There have been suggestions that Conservative Back Benchers are being or have been whipped to vote against the motion. I state categorically that I have not been whipped by any Liberal Democrat Member to vote either way. All I say to Conservative colleagues who may be thinking of voting against the motion is that they should bear in mind the level of public support throughout the country and, more specifically, in their constituencies for a total ban on the use of wild animals in circuses.
	My concern is that the Government’s proposal of introducing a licensing scheme may inadvertently legitimise the use of wild animals in circuses, resulting in an increase in their use and an increase in suffering.

Nigel Dodds: Another problem with licensing is that it does not deal with the issue of animal welfare, because the animals still travel and are still kept in unacceptable conditions.

John Leech: I thank the right hon. Gentleman; I was about to make that very point.
	Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of wild animals in circuses. There are now only about 38 or 39 animals being used in three circuses. That is a welcome decline and I hope that the trend continues as more and more people support a complete ban. Recent surveys have suggested that at least 70% of people support a complete ban, and more than 94% of people who responded to the consultation did so as well.
	Unfortunately, I understand from the Captive Animals Protection Society that the day after the Westminster Hall debate Malcolm Clay, secretary of the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain, said that far from a licensing scheme discouraging circuses from using wild animals—which the Minister suggested might be the case—
	“Once we have… regulation which reassures the public we may see some circuses return to using animals.”
	Surely that is not the Minister’s intention.
	There has been a public focus on the issue of wild animals in circuses in recent times, not least because of the spotlight on the poor treatment of Anne the elephant, but also owing to the number of people who have seen the film “Water for Elephants” in the cinema. I urge
	Members who have not seen the film to go and see it. Unfortunately, however, the plight of Anne the elephant has muddied the waters to some extent. I do not think anyone would deny that no one with a brain would condone the mistreatment of animals, and I have no doubt that this was only one of a very small number of instances of animal cruelty in circuses. I am sure that the vast majority of wild animals in circuses are looked after as well as they possibly can be. What concerns me is that the nature of a circus, which involves moving from place to place in cramped conditions, makes it impossible to provide a suitable living environment for wild animals.
	The nature of a circus also makes it impossible to provide an inspection system that could adequately check that regulations were being adhered to at every location unless that system is ridiculously expensive. Although the Minister has said that the cost will fall on the circuses, I suspect that the result will probably be an inadequate inspection system and an insufficient number of inspections. An inspection system will not work, and may result in more wild animals in circuses and more suffering. It will not address the fact that the constant movement of animals in cramped conditions is not good for the welfare of the animals. The only way to ensure an end to animal suffering in circuses is a complete ban, and I urge Members in all parts of the House to vote for that ban

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. So that more Back Benchers will have an opportunity to speak, I am reducing the time limit to five minutes.

Caroline Lucas: I pay tribute to the Members who tabled this important motion.
	We need a ban on keeping wild animals in circuses because it is cruel, but we also need a ban because the welfare of those animals is emblematic of the way in which we treat all animals, and is symbolic of the kind of society in which we live. The Government are wrong to suggest that the European Union is somehow preventing us from dealing with the issue. In response to the insistence of Ministers during the last debate on this subject that a legal threat in Europe had been a major factor in the prevention of an outright ban, leading animal protection organisations called a meeting with the European Commission’s Head of Representation, at which it was confirmed once again that the issue of wild animals in circuses was a matter best left to the judgment of member states.
	When I was a Member of the European Parliament, we did a great deal of work trying to make progress with animal welfare issues in the Parliament. Often, the advice was to go back to member states in the first instance and to rouse them to act. I have therefore urged Ministers to consider, for example, the action that was taken first on dog and cat fur and then on seal fur. On both occasions, leadership by member states prompted the EU to ban imports of those types of fur. It is significant that the legal advice that was used in an attempt to stop those bans was that there were so-called “outstanding legal impediments”. Exactly the same excuse is being used today. Governments were given the legal
	advice that it would be impossible to ban imports of cat and dog fur, and the same was said of seal fur, but when individual Governments challenged that dubious advice, they were able to make the bans happen.
	It is when a number of forward-thinking member states call strongly for action on something that we see progress on the EU position. There are clear precedents, not least in animal welfare policy, in which action by individual states has been the means by which animal welfare protection has been secured across the EU.
	In an attempt to find out whether the Government were genuinely looking for a legal way to make a ban on wild animals in circuses happen, I tabled a written question asking whether the Secretary of State had received any legal advice on
	“instances where a single EU member state has taken unilateral action on animal welfare matters which has led subsequently to a change of EU policy in line with that action”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 408W.]
	The extraordinarily complacent response was that the Secretary of State had “no recollection” of any such advice. Why is she not going out and asking for that advice? Why is she not looking for the legal means to go ahead with a ban, in line with the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country? Instead, she and her Ministers have been looking for legal cases to cower behind as a cover for not acting.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that it is not just because of public opinion that we need a ban, important thought that is. Members have spoken about the importance of science, and I have cited the evidence of the British Veterinary Association, which has stated that
	“the welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus; especially in terms of accommodation and the ability to express normal behaviour. A licensing scheme will not address these issues”.
	We are not criticising individual circus owners; we are saying that the very nature of being in a circus means that animals’ welfare needs cannot be addressed.
	At first, my feeling was that the Government’s position was extraordinarily cowardly. As the debates continue, I am sadly coming to the conclusion that they do not want to act because they do not like to be seen to be banning things, and are therefore looking for excuses. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that successive UK Governments have been in breach of their obligations under the bathing water directive since 1975. Although it is nice to see DEFRA suddenly discovering the idea of complying in full with what it perceives to be its EU obligations, perhaps it is not too cynical to suggest on this occasion that they simply do not want to act.
	If the Government wanted to stop this cruel practice, they would be acting. In their defence we would have another euro-sausage type story, with headlines about the UK having every right to act and comments like “How dare the EU interfere?”, as we saw with the “Defend the British banger” story. Yet in this instance, the EU is not telling us what to do. Instead, we are inventing barriers where none exists.

Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Lady is making a marvellous speech. My understanding is that every legal case brought by European circus owners, like the one in Austria that has been mentioned, has been lost. There seems to be almost no real basis at all for the Government’s claim.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is very helpful in pointing out that that argument is a smokescreen that the Government are hiding behind. Indeed, the Head of Representation of the European Commission here in London recently wrote a letter to the Captive Animals Protection Society stating plainly, yet again, that the EU considered that
	“the welfare of animals…is a matter best left to the judgement of Member States”.
	It is not acceptable to have a policy which leaves us just hoping that regulations will have the same effect as a ban, particularly given that the secretary of the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain stated on the day after our last debate that he did not believe the new costs of regulation would discourage circuses from having performing animals. Instead, he stated that
	“once we have robust regulation which reassures the public we may see some circuses return to using animals”.
	How perverse would that be as an outcome of having licences?

Don Foster: For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Lady confirm that the EU has not said just that these issues are best left to member states? The Commissioner has specifically said that they are the responsibility of member states. That is what gives us the legitimacy to have a ban, and to have it now.

Caroline Lucas: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is the responsibility of member states to act, and it is within our remit and right for us to do so. That is what the EU is saying, so it is incredibly perverse to try to do otherwise.
	In conclusion, the Government’s judgment on this matter is woefully lacking. They have got it wrong on this one.

Angela Smith: I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Lady towards the end of her speech, and I thank her for allowing me to do so. If the vote tonight is in favour of a ban, does she, like me, expect the Government to act on that and bring in a ban as quickly as possible?

Caroline Lucas: I think that were the Government not to act in that way, the Great British public would be shocked and any sense of democratic accountability would be undermined. I agree completely with the hon. Lady that they should respect the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country and immediately ban the cruel practice of keeping wild animals in circuses. Personally, I would go further and ban all animals in circuses, not just wild animals. I refer hon. Members to Cirque du Soleil, one of the most famous and successful circuses in all of Europe, which uses no animals at all.
	The outcome that the Government imply they want is for there to be no wild animals in circuses. If that is the case, I call on them to show some real leadership and effect a ban now.

Zac Goldsmith: I pay my respects to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), whom I cannot see in the Chamber, and congratulate him on securing this important debate.
	I should like to put it on the record that I am grateful that we will now have a free vote. Applying a three-line Whip to an issue such as this would have made a mockery of the relationship between Parliament and the Government. That is a welcome move in the past couple of hours.
	I shall not pretend that this is the biggest animal welfare issue, because it clearly is not. There are 30 or 40 wild animals in circuses in this country. That does not compare with the millions of animals that have to experience daily the brutality and horrors of factory farming. This is none the less an important issue. There is no justifiable reason for keeping animals such as elephants, tigers, lions and so on in small, travelling cages, away from any semblance of what for them would be a normal life. That is just not civilised.
	My understanding is that until recently the Government took the same view, but that that changed somewhere along the line. It is hard for me—and, I believe, many others—to understand why that happened. For one thing, the vast majority of people support a ban. All the polls suggest that. The public appetite for such entertainment is, at best, fading. It is certainly not a growth sector.

Justin Tomlinson: With overwhelming public opinion against the use of animals, might such a ban help circuses, because it could attract customers who, like me, are appalled by the use of wild animals, back to them?

Zac Goldsmith: That is an extremely valuable point. I have been to circuses in this country, but I have made a point of choosing to go only to those that I know use no wild animals. It would be nice not to have to do that research. I am sure that many people are repelled for that reason.

Dave Watts: The general public, MPs and even Ministers are opposed to live animals in circuses. Is it not clear that the only person blocking a ban is the Prime Minister?

Zac Goldsmith: I have no idea. I do not know the politics and I do not know the Prime Minister’s position. I accept that the vast majority of the public are opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, as—I believe—are the vast majority of Members of the House.
	It is particular confusing that whereas the Government have a stated ambition over the course of this Parliament to reduce red tape and bureaucracy, their alternative to a straightforward ban affecting 30 or perhaps 40 animals is to construct a new regulatory regime, with licensing and inspections and the various associated costs. That goes against the Government’s general thrust and direction—and all for 30 or 40 animals. That makes no sense at all.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the strength of public opinion. Why were his Government and his Prime Minister prepared to have a three-line Whip for Conservatives until the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) stood up?

Zac Goldsmith: I began my speech by welcoming the change of heart over the past couple of hours. I have not been part of that process, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am very pleased that
	we will have a free vote—it is the kind of issue that should have a free vote. I am very much on the record before the debate as saying that I would have defied a three-line Whip and voted for the motion, as a very large number of Government Members would have done. That is perhaps one of the reasons why we will now have a free vote.
	The most disturbing aspect of the Government’s change of position is that it is not based on a change of heart. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the only reason we have been given is that the Government fear a possible EU legal challenge some time in future. The Minister was quoted in The Independent today, I believe, as saying that
	“a total ban on wild animals in circuses might well be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union services directive and under our own Human Rights Act”.
	If that is true, it is hard to imagine anything more embarrassing for the House. The Government are effectively saying that even though they want to do this minor thing, and even though the public would support such a move, they cannot do it because they no longer have the authority. What does that say about Parliament, democracy or this country?
	Let me put it another way. What is the point of making promises up and down the country in the run-up to an election on the campaign trail if we no longer have the authority to fulfil even the most basic promise? That makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy in this country.

Matthew Offord: I am sure my hon. Friend will recall the issue of prisoners’ voting rights, when the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights told us we were not allowed to deny them those rights. I was pleased that hon. Members, particularly Government Members, had the opportunity to show the will of Parliament. This is an opportunity for us to show our will again.

Zac Goldsmith: I absolutely accept that point, and there are other examples too. We had a debate a month ago on fish discards, and the House unanimously agreed a resolution requiring that the Government veto any reforms to the common fisheries policy unless they included our reasserting control over the 12 miles around our coast. It remains to be seen whether we have the strength to show our will again, although I very much hope that we do, just as we did over prisoner votes. In this case, the legal advice is, at best, ambiguous, and I am convinced by the arguments used by a number of speakers that there is, in fact, no genuine threat at all, and that this is something that the Government should and must do. I am going to back the motion, and I hope that colleagues will do the same, if not for the wild animals themselves then simply to send a message to the public that Parliament exists, and exists for a purpose.

Cathy Jamieson: For once—perhaps the only time—it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I suspect that there might be many occasions on which we do not agree, but on this one we certainly do.
	I want to make a short contribution because it is important that the House is seen to reflect public opinion and the views of our constituents. Like other hon. Members, I have many constituents who care passionately about animal welfare. They do not see it as part of a political agenda that they are working to for their own sake or to gain a position; they believe genuinely in what they argue. I pay particular tribute to one of my constituents, Maureen Rankin from Kilmarnock, who over the years has done a huge amount of work on the issue of wild animals in circuses. I am glad that the tone of debate has moved on from what was a fairly sparky beginning to starting to find consensus across the House and political parties. That is what the public are looking for on an issue such as this. There will be times when we disagree, and there will be nuances and differences.

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the Labour Government allowed a free vote on tail docking. Does she agree that her constituents would expect there to be an automatic free vote on an issue of this importance, which is cross-party rather than party political?

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I certainly was glad to hear, during the debate, that the Government have decided to offer a free vote, because it gives Members the opportunity genuinely to reflect the views of their constituents.
	The arguments for the ban have been well rehearsed during the debate, so I do not want to go over them all again. It is important to recognise that the arguments being made by organisations such as OneKind, Animal Defenders International and the Born Free Foundation arise out of the view that has grown up over the years that it is no longer acceptable for animals to be used for entertainment in circuses. After many years in politics, albeit in another Parliament, I am glad to be with 95% of the public rather than trying to change opinion and argue my case, which was the position I was in when I first entered politics. It has been mentioned that several local authorities, including in Scotland, have already decided not to allow circuses with wild animals.

Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite some of the doom and gloom, including in my city, when local authorities took that step about 20 years ago—people said, “Well, that will be the end of circuses in the city”—we have seen some superb circuses every year since?

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. In Edinburgh, Fife and my local authority area in Ayrshire, there was cross-party support for not allowing circuses with wild animals on to council land, but the local authorities I know of, particularly in Scotland, want to take further measures to ensure not only that such circuses are not allowed on their land but that they cannot enter other locations in the council area.
	Mention was also made in the opening speech of the Scottish Government’s position. My understanding is that the new Scottish Government are sympathetic to a ban. However, when I questioned the previous Scottish Government last year on their position, they said that they were awaiting the results of the DEFRA consultation.
	Securing a vote today and, for once, taking the lead on this issue would not just send a powerful message to England and Wales, but would be helpful to colleagues in the Scottish Parliament who want a ban enacted there.

Naomi Long: The hon. Lady may also be aware that colleagues have tabled a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly on banning wild animals in circuses, but when I corresponded with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development I was told that the Department was looking to DEFRA to take a lead and establish the principle.

Cathy Jamieson: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. The devolved Administrations have powers that they can use, but on issues such as this, which are important across the UK, it is important that DEFRA Ministers show leadership.
	I understand that the Minister may be in a difficult position. It is always difficult if a Minister has strongly held personal views but the advice that they receive—legal advice, or advice from others in the Department or civil servants, or even from higher up their political party—does not correspond with those views. I hope that the strength of feeling shown across the House today will give the Minister the opportunity to give us hope that the Government might be able to move if this vote is passed. That is certainly what my constituents who have been writing to me all week expect. We have a consensus building in the public’s mind. It is time to show a consensual approach and, come voting time, to ensure that this afternoon’s vote is registered in support of public opinion, the organisations that have campaigned over many years and, most of all, the animals who would otherwise continue to be at risk.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. As the House can see, several Members are still trying to speak. The wind-ups will start at half-past 5, so if Members can show restraint and reduce their five minutes themselves—perhaps to three and a half minutes—everybody might get in.

Sheryll Murray: I will try to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on calling this debate, which gives me the opportunity to introduce the House to Donkey, who is a Barbary macaque who now lives in my constituency—if Members want to see what he looks like, I would be happy to show them afterwards.
	Donkey’s story is not a happy one. Caught as a youngster and smuggled into Europe from Morocco, probably via Spain, Donkey wound up as a circus performer. Donkey suffered years of abuse in the circus, where he was beaten and forced to perform in front of large crowds. He was castrated, to avoid him becoming aggressive towards his captors, and denied the company of others of his kind, which causes immense mental and emotional suffering in all primates. All primates are highly social animals. Maternal deprivation is known not only to hinder psychological development, but to
	have physiological consequences, such as abnormal brain development. Donkey displays all those damaging signs: he has very poor social skills and is underdeveloped for a monkey of his age.
	Donkey will never be able to return to the wild, owing to the damage he has sustained, but he now lives with friends of his own species. I hope that in time Donkey will be able to live a fairly fulfilled life in my constituency, at the Wild Futures monkey sanctuary near Looe. I would like to give a quick plug to the monkey sanctuary, which does fantastic work. If hon. Members are down our way during the recess, they should pop in and see the sanctuary, because Donkey and all his friends would love to see them. More importantly, the entrance fee and donations will feed him and other rescued primates at the centre.
	Please remember Donkey, and the message that he cannot bring to the debate himself. It is time to ban wild animals in all circuses, so that the terrible life that Donkey has suffered need not be repeated. This is why I will support the motion.

Nicholas Dakin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has spoken up for animals such as Donkey that cannot speak up for themselves. It is also a pleasure to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and for Colchester (Bob Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on bringing it before the House. There is overwhelming public support for the introduction of a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, and it is crucial that we have a vote on this motion today. I am pleased to hear from the hon. Member for The Wrekin that there is to be a free vote across the whole House. That is what the country is asking for on this issue, and it is what the country should have.
	There are only three circuses left in the UK that use wild animals in performances. It has been recognised that to use them for human entertainment is unethical and unjustifiable, and that it should therefore be opposed. The previous Government consulted the country on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses in 2009, and the consultation closed in March 2010. It received more than 10,000 responses, 94.5% of which supported a ban. That illustrates the extent of public opinion, which has been reflected in our postbags over the past couple of weeks.

Ian Mearns: I have received just one item of correspondence from someone who is against a ban—he is not a constituent of mine; he was writing from an address in Dorset—but I have had hundreds of e-mails and letters from my constituents calling for a ban.

Nicholas Dakin: I have received no correspondence opposing a ban. Indeed, we have heard from only one Member this afternoon adopting a different point of view. It is good that that point of view has been aired, because it is important in democratic debates that all points of view are heard.
	I am particularly pleased to see a good turnout of Lib Dems for this debate. I suspect that they feel a certain empathy with circus animals, as an endangered
	species being kept against their will for the entertainment of others.
	[
	Laughter.
	]
	But this is a serious issue, and if the motion is carried today, the Government should listen to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to members of the public. They should listen to what the British people are saying, and they should stop clowning about and introduce a ban on wild animals in circuses.

Angie Bray: As a child, I used to get rather excited by the prospect of a visit to the circus; one reason was that I wanted to see all the exotic animals that I could not normally get close to, apart from those that I saw in zoos, which in those days were rather caged affairs. Obviously, however, things have changed. We are all now entertained by brilliant films on TV and in cinemas that contain amazing footage of wild animals in their natural habitat. Most zoos are made to look rather boring in comparison with what David Attenborough shows us. Thanks to many animal welfare associations, we are also much better educated about world wildlife and how it should be treated. For those who really want to see wildlife close up, let us not forget the modern tourist industry. People can save up their pennies and take themselves off on a safari or a trip to the rainforest. These are the ways in which we can see wild animals at their best, and there really is no excuse or need for wild animals in circuses.
	The more we know and understand these magnificent animals, the more we recognise that a circus tent is no place for them. Some of them might have been whipped, goaded or herded into their rather pathetic performances. I can still remember from my visits to the circus that when the lions and other big animals came in, extra security was immediately put on and a man with a whip, if not a chair, would appear. That tells us everything that we need to know. Of course these animals are not safe in the circus environment; they have to be controlled. Of course they cannot be relied on to relax and enjoy themselves; they are in an unnatural environment, surrounded on all sides by human beings, of whom they are instinctively frightened. Frankly, these animals’ continued presence in the circus ring, even if there are only about 39 of them, diminishes us all.
	I know that some will argue that some animals are not, in fact, wild because they were born in captivity. We heard that this afternoon, but I do not see what difference that makes. A lion or an elephant still has natural instincts; it still needs proper space to move around in, and being driven around the country for much of the year in the back of a van is no place for these animals.

Bob Blackman: Does my hon. Friend agree that introducing a firm ban with a firm date means that no new animals will be brought into circuses and that the circus owners will be put on notice that those currently operating in circuses will need to be retired to appropriate circumstances that suit their needs?

Angie Bray: I certainly agree that we need a ban, although I am just a little worried about whether the time frame is practical; I will come back to that issue later, if I may.
	I want to put it on record that I am not in favour of banning all animals from circuses. I think that some of the more domesticated animals—dogs and ponies spring to mind—thoroughly enjoy themselves. I recall going to a charming little circus in France where a farmer, his wife, their two children, a goat and a dog held us all spellbound for about an hour. I can say that that dog and goat had a good time, getting a treat every time they did something brilliant. We know that there is room for some animals; it is the big wild animals that are the problem.
	In conclusion, I want a ban on wild animals in circuses. I recognise, however, that there might be certain legal obstacles to getting that straight away. A time frame of one year is perhaps a little impractical. I am not an expert on EU law, but I know that before a ban of this sort could be introduced, there would have to be consultation and a way would have to found to re-home these 39 animals. That is why I intend to abstain this evening. However, I also put the Government on notice that I want to see a ban and want them to do whatever they must to introduce a ban as practicably as they can.

Bob Russell: As the third signatory to this motion, I would like to congratulate my colleagues, the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on their positive speeches. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for his bravery in the lion’s den, as the only Member thus far to speak against the motion. That takes courage, and I congratulate him on that.
	I detect the fingerprints of No. 10 Downing street on this. I have tabled a parliamentary question and I await the written answer with great interest. Opposing live animal acts in circuses is something that I first got involved with on 15 May 1971, when, as a borough councillor of 48 hours, I was contacted by Mr Murphy of Barrack street who urged me to get circuses banned from Colchester. I put that to the council, but I was a lone voice and nothing happened. A few years later, however, Colchester became one of the first local authorities in the country to ban circuses from its land and buildings. Unfortunately, we need a nationwide Government ban, because we still have a landowner in the town who I regret to say allows his land to be used for circuses. Circuses are barbaric; they have no place in a civilised society of the 21st century.

Annette Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and briefly congratulate him on his long-standing work on this and other animal protection issues. I would also like to say that many of our councils led the way, but do not have quite enough power, as my hon. Friend said. I think we should therefore move on this issue as soon as possible.

Bob Russell: I am grateful for those comments.
	To follow up the issue of what happens to the remaining 39 circus animals, I am pretty confident that this country’s zoos will be ready and available to accommodate them. Colchester zoo took in three elephants from a circus, and Rolf Harris was there to open the spirit of Africa enclosure . The bull elephant was particularly pleased because he was then put with four cows, which he had to look after. He was very happy.
	There are circuses that we can support, however, such as the Chinese and Moscow state circuses, as well as small local circuses involving just a few people. The Netherlands national circus is currently performing in Ipswich, then next week in Lowestoft and the week after that in Colchester, and I intend to be there, subject to confirmation that it is, indeed, animal free as I am advised.

Neil Parish: I support the motion as it is high time we banned animals in circuses. I have been worried about the stance that has been taken and I am glad the Government Whips have now given us a free vote on this, because animal welfare is a moral issue and Members on both sides of the House want a ban on wild animals in circuses.
	The plank of the Government’s argument relating to Austria is fragile, and I fear that it might be sawn off at some stage. I would prefer us to take a much firmer stance by going for a ban and letting somebody challenge it if they want to, because I do not think that anybody will do so.

Mark Reckless: Given the position my hon. Friend has set out, why has he decided to be the lead signatory to the amendment to the motion? If my understanding is correct, the amendment would have prevented any ban from being introduced until some supposed EU legal issue was resolved.

Neil Parish: I will deal with that later, but I have previously stated that we should challenge the court ruling in the Austria case.
	There has been too much talk today about the process of government and who is to blame and who is not to blame, instead of getting to grips with the welfare issues of animals in circuses. If we do have to take note of the case in Austria—

Andrew Bingham: My hon. Friend talks about process, but does he not agree that the best thing to do is vote in favour of the motion and get the ban put in place, job done?

Neil Parish: Yes, but putting the ban in place will take a little while, so meanwhile we should consider certain animal welfare issues. The conditions endured by circus animals when being transported are totally wrong. The conditions need to be greatly improved. There must be much more comprehensive inspection of that, which would lead to much greater costs on such circuses. Therefore, a great deal of pressure can be applied in the meantime, before we introduce a ban.
	I may disagree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), but in a democracy he has the right to raise them. He talked about the fact that many of these animals have performed for many years. They will need to be rehabilitated and found homes, so let us use the time available to good effect in that regard.
	We want the Government to listen to the arguments on a total ban. I do not know what the Minister is going to say, but I would like him to say that the Government have thought again and that they are minded to introduce
	a ban in the future. That is what we want. In this day and age, we cannot have wild animals in circuses. Many of us also know about the pain that can be caused by the amount of training those animals are put through and the way in which they are trained to perform in unnatural ways.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the question put to him by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) about how he reconciles his current stated position with his position as the leading signatory to the amendment.

Neil Parish: Perhaps I am being criticised for taking a pragmatic view on this. I want a ban and the only reason for the amendment was that the requirement in the motion that a ban would have to be in place in 12 months might not have settled the legal situation. We do not want to give the Government an excuse not to move towards a ban.

Mark Pritchard: To which legal cases is my hon. Friend referring? There are currently none in England, the United Kingdom or in European law. There is only one possible case in Austria. Is he, as a former Member of the European Parliament and allegedly a Eurosceptic, suggesting that we should wait for the decisions of domestic courts in other capitals, let alone in European courts, before making our own decisions in this country?

Neil Parish: I covered that point at the beginning of my speech when I said that the case in Austria is not a good one on which to put the whole plank of the Government’s reasons for why we cannot ban the use of wild animals in circuses. As far as I am concerned, the only reason for the amendment was to give the Government time to come forward with a ban. Clearly, there is a move from all parts of the House to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. Now we want to hear from the Minister very clearly what the timetable for that will be, how we are going to deal with the court case and how we will move to a ban as quickly as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are four minutes and three speakers left—we must finish by 5.30 pm.

Simon Hart: I am not a fan of wild animals in circuses, I would not take my children to see them or go myself and I think that the quicker we can move to a situation in which they do not exist the better. I do not even like dancing dogs on Britain’s Got Talent very much—I think it is demeaning for the owner and the dog—so I strongly sympathise with many of the arguments that have been put forward this afternoon. However, what I like even less is taking a populist route because it seems to be the easy one against, sometimes, principle and evidence. We are charged, whether we like it or not, with taking a responsible approach to these things, which is sometimes difficult in the face of overwhelming and well-targeted pressure on us as MPs. It seems to me that we are making this more difficult for ourselves by confusing an argument about ethics and morality with
	one about legal enforceability. This has been complicated by the haunting image of possible challenges in the European Court.
	However, let me curtail my contribution. Regulation can work. I simply do not buy the argument that it would somehow open up a Pandora’s box. If we are sensible about regulation, not only can we improve animal welfare standards and move to a situation in which animals in circuses are a thing of the past, but we can do it without putting the taxpayer at risk of having to fork out for a lengthy, time-consuming and very expensive EU challenge. We can do it in reasonably quick time and without the need for primary legislation. The Government were right about this 10 days ago when the Minister spoke in Westminster Hall and nothing has changed in the intervening 10 days. It seems to me that if he is genuine to his word, as I am sure he is, we can achieve everything that everybody in the House wants without all the nonsense, cost and threat to the taxpayer that we have been talking about. I shall be voting against the motion tonight and commending the Government’s approach.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are two minutes left. I call Tessa Munt.

Tessa Munt: Nothing short of a ban seems to be the answer to making this absolutely clear. The views of many organisations have been represented in the debate this afternoon, but I would like to pay particular tribute to Virginia McKenna and the Born Free Foundation, who are observing the debate from the Gallery this afternoon.
	I want to make two quick points. First, the Government’s proposals for licensing and regulation are still going to be subject to a legal challenge and I do not see how that would be any different. I refer the Minister to an answer to a parliamentary question in the European Parliament that was answered by Commissioner Potocnik. The question was:
	“What is the Commission doing to enforce animal welfare standards in European zoos and circuses?”
	In his answer, Commissioner Potocnik dealt with the question of zoos and then said quite clearly:
	“Circuses are specifically excluded from the scope of the Zoos Directive, and are not covered by any other EU legislation. Therefore, the welfare of circus animals remains the responsibility of the Member States.”
	That was at the end of May.
	My constituent, Gerry Cottle, ran away at the age of 15 to join the circus, and very successful he has been. I spoke to him yesterday. He said that the circus has moved on and times have changed, and that public opinion was against “the dinosaurs” who use wild animals in circuses. We do not need them. He runs a successful circus without animals, creating good old-fashioned theatre and entertainment.
	There is no way that any circus owner could say that banning animals from circuses was a human rights issue because it caused loss of livelihood. Many circuses operate without animals, which is a testament to progress. I support the motion and I trust that the Minister will hear the clamour for a ban both in this place and outside.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Mr Gavin Shuker for the Opposition. He has 10 minutes.

Gavin Shuker: I congratulate the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and for Colchester (Bob Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on their work in securing the debate. It is right that it was secured by the Backbench Business Committee, given the depth of feeling on both sides of the House.
	It is appropriate to mention some of the Members on the Government Benches who made brave speeches, specifically the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr Offord), for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Colchester and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). In many ways, they are lions led by donkeys. I am pleased that we as a party and as an Opposition stand firmly behind them. Indeed, almost every speaker supported a ban, with the exception of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) who looks like the man who bet everything on red but it came up black.
	Today, the Minister has the opportunity to offer some kind of leadership. Unfortunately for him, however, it seems that the position has changed since he took his seat in the Chamber today. That is a shame, because we want to hear a justification for his current position.
	Let me be clear: there is a majority in the House in favour of a ban. The public consultation launched by Labour found massive support for a ban. I have no desire to overturn the cross-party consensus on the issue, but it raises serious questions about DEFRA’s decision making. A new Government come in, and what do we see? Yet more dither and delay, instead of a clear, consistent position from them. I direct Members to the Minister’s answer on 19 May, when, outrageously, he said:
	“If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 499.]
	What a pathetic response.
	Indeed, the Department’s entire response has not been great—to say the least. First, there was a year of delay in which we saw shocking images of Anne the elephant being beaten. Who knows what else has gone unseen? Secondly, we saw DEFRA dithering from the top, because in April, the ban was on. The Secretary of State had made her decision, and she briefed the Sunday Express that a ban would be introduced, but within a few weeks, she had made her first U-turn. The Secretary of State’s favourite interviewer without coffee—the Prime Minister—had intervened in DEFRA affairs once again and now the ban was off.
	Thirdly, we saw the incompetence of a Department that many have described as in special measures. New decision made, along came the policy-based evidence-making process. The Secretary of State provided a written ministerial statement outlining her reasoning. In it, she cited an Austrian court case that did not yet exist. A second statement tried to fix that. She owned up: the Government only thought the case was on after reading a press release. Dragged to the House for an
	urgent question, there was no apology for misleading Members, just the tired excuses we have come to expect—this time, amazingly, about the Human Rights Act. Talk about digging a hole.
	The Government refuse to publish their legal advice, although, of course, they remain happy to hide behind it. The Government-backed amendment to the motion, quite rightly not selected, calls for a ban to be introduced as soon as legal impediments are resolved. That gives rise to some confusion. First, the Government say that there are no legal impediments, then that there are overwhelming legal impediments, and now that there are resolvable legal impediments. That is less a U-turn and more a giant arc, gobbling up and spitting out unprepared Ministers in its path. Now there is to be a free vote: U-turn complete.
	Most depressing of all, the Government were right the first time; there is nothing wrong with banning the use of wild animals in circuses and that ban should be introduced right now. The Government argue that a ban may contravene the European services directive, but that is incorrect. Last month, the EU Commissioner for the Environment reiterated that the EU’s position had not changed, saying that
	“the welfare of circus animals remains the responsibility of the Member States.”
	The Government state that there is a lack of scientific evidence in support of a ban. Again, that is not correct. A global research study supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals concludes that
	“species of non-domesticated animals commonly kept in circuses appear the least suited to a circus life”.
	The Government argue that a ban requires primary legislation. Again, that is incorrect. DEFRA’s impact assessment makes it clear that powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are sufficient to introduce a ban.

Paul Uppal: Those are fine words, but will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Labour party did not do something about the issue when it was in power?

Gavin Shuker: I appreciate the opportunity to say what we did when in government. We banned animal testing for cosmetics. We banned the process of battery farm eggs. We created new powers to stop animal cruelty. We banned tail docking. We stopped the trade in seals. We ended fur farming, and we passed the hunt ban. I am proud to stand on that record as a Labour Member of Parliament. We introduced the 2006 Act that allows the Minister to ban the practice of wild animals performing in circuses, and that is exactly what we are calling for today.

John Leech: The previous Government had a reasonable record on animal welfare, but they had four years from the 2006 Act until they lost the general election. Why was the ban not introduced in those four years?

Gavin Shuker: I am delighted to say that we had a clear commitment to do that in this Parliament. As a Member of Parliament, I share the desire, expressed across the House, to implement the ban. We must be
	clear that the barrier to implementation is the Tory-led Government, who found the roadblocks in the first place. I hope that we will hear much more about that.

Mark Pritchard: Has not the strength of the debate been the cross-party consensus? Notwithstanding the right of any Member to make points about this Government or previous Governments, that strength has been shown in all Members working together, reflecting the will of Parliament and the British people.

Gavin Shuker: I am glad to associate myself with those sentiments. There are serious questions to be asked about the process—we will certainly ask them at a later date—but the most important thing about tonight’s vote is that we follow the Members who raised the issue in the first place through the Division Lobby and ensure that a ban is enacted.
	One of my major concerns if we do not pass the motion is that circuses are saying that the Government’s licensing scheme could produce an increase in the number of performing animals in British circuses. Surely, that alone must give us pause for thought. The issue is straightforward, and the solution is pretty clear. The Government should introduce a ban under the previous Government’s Animal Welfare Act 2006.
	Events have moved on in the House since we started the debate. It now seems clear that there will be a free vote. I am glad to hear that because I believe that, on such issues of conscience, we are strongest as a House when we stand together against practices that have no place in a modern society. Perhaps more importantly, I believe that the DEFRA ministerial team had the right position in the first place. They instinctively felt that a ban was the right way go on the issue. For that reason, I should like to encourage them to go through the Lobby with us tonight to make a clear and definite case about the kind of society that we seek to create, and in doing so, we will be much stronger as a House together.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the Minister, may I suggest that we have until five to 6 before I call the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)?

James Paice: I will forgo the obvious opportunity to use many of the numerous witticisms that I have heard during the past 48 hours about my appearance here, but I will start by simply trying to say that I will walk the tightrope over the next 10 or 15 minutes.
	As several hon. Members have shown, this debate has demonstrated that, with one or two exceptions, there is passionate agreement across the Floor of the House that we should see an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. I assure the House that nothing divides us on that front. When we came to office a year ago, we had the advantage of receiving the results of the consultation to which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred, and we had to examine all the options. A ban was one of those. We did not have the advantage of the advice that he received because that was confidential to the previous Government.
	We had a new set of advice from our lawyers and we had to use that in coming to our view. It clearly indicated that there were serious risks of a legal challenge should we opt for an outright ban, despite our being minded to do so. I will return to the detail of those legalities because that has occupied much of the afternoon’s debate, but it is for that reason and in the interest of avoiding a long judicial process that we concluded that the quickest way to reduce and, we hoped, eliminate cruelty to wild animals in our circuses would be a robust licensing system, which might well result in circuses deciding to stop keeping such animals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who moved the motion, has shown diligence in pursuit of his cause. However, I am afraid his dedication has allowed him to misrepresent a number of issues, and some of that has been repeated by other hon. Members. The first is the Commission’s view about whether this is entirely a matter for member states. I remind the House that the view of a Commissioner is simply that. I have seen the letter sent by the Commission to the Captive Animals Protection Society, and I understand that that is the view of the Commission, but as I said in the House last time we debated the subject, it is ultimately the courts that interpret legislation, and our lawyers have to advise us not about what the Commission’s view is, but how they believe a court might interpret the legislation.

Martin Horwood: Had there been time for me to be called, I would have made the point that cruelty, in the sense of physical cruelty to animals, is not the only issue. People’s experience of wild animals is much richer through the internet, television and, indeed, the Cheltenham science festival, making it unnecessary for animals to be kept in captivity. There is increasing scientific evidence that there are complex emotions and intelligence in animals, especially intelligent animals such as elephants, which make any kind of systematic confinement inherently cruel, even if physical cruelty is not present.

James Paice: I fully understand my hon. Friend’s comments and I shall pick up one or two of them in a moment.

Angela Smith: rose —

Dave Watts: rose —

James Paice: I shall make a few more points before I give way. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin listed, as did other hon. Members, a range of other countries that have allegedly banned the use of wild animals in circuses. Many of those references were incorrect. A number of countries have selectively banned certain species. A number have rightly banned wild caught wild animals, which is a different issue. My hon. Friend and others speculated that licensing might mean more animals in circuses. I find that difficult to believe. I note the comments from the circuses that were mentioned, but we are not talking just about issuing a licence. We are talking about very tough licensing conditions for keeping such animals.

Gavin Shuker: I am sure the whole House would like to hear what those tough licensing conditions would be. If they incorporate travelling for weeks on end up and
	down motorways chained in a cage and going from place to place, many people would conclude that they are not worth the paper they are written on.

James Paice: That may well be the judgment that the hon. Gentleman and many others—and probably even I—would come to, but as we have clearly stated, we would go out to consultation in order to form a view of what those standards should be.
	Let me conclude my comments on the introductory speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. He never made any attempt to justify using section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I shall refer to that in a little more detail. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse also referred to that. I respect him immensely. We shared a mutual respect when I shadowed him, and I think that remains the case, but I must correct his memory on the previous European case, without going through all the detail. He remarked earlier that the circus lost against the ombudsman, but that is not the case; the ombudsman made a damning criticism of maladministration against the Commission, based on the view that it had abdicated its responsibility to maintain the treaties by not interfering in the rights of member states, so there is a distinction.
	The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the 2006 Act. I served on the Bill Committee, as did the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—I remember her efforts at that time to introduce a ban, which she described today. It was resisted by the Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and by Lord Rooker in the other place. While the Bill was on Report on 8 March 2006, the right hon. Member for Exeter stated:
	“I intend to use a regulation under clause 10 of the Animal Welfare Bill to ban the use in travelling circuses of certain non-domesticated species”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 61WS.]
	That was in March 2006, over four years before the general election. Whatever the good intent of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, the fact is that his Government did nothing, despite that declared intent.

Dave Watts: Let us go to the root cause of the problem between the Minister and everyone else. He seems to be pinning his case on the idea that someone might take legal action and might win a court case. On that basis, the House could not pass any legislation.

James Paice: I am coming to that exact point.
	If the House were to approve the motion, the Government would have to respect that, but as a Minister I am duty bound to lay before it the possible consequences—I stress the word “possible”—of that decision not only for the Government, but for the House, taxpayers and possibly the animals that we are concerned about.

Stephen Pound: Will the Minister give way?

James Paice: No I will not; the hon. Gentleman was not here for much of the debate.
	The legal advice we have received on section 12 of the 2006 Act is that although it could be used as the basis for a total ban, it is highly likely that we would be challenged on the basis that an outright ban was a
	disproportionate measure for improving welfare in circuses. That is exactly the same advice as the previous Government received in the Radford report, which they commissioned after the discussions in 2006. The report makes it absolutely clear that there was insufficient evidence to ensure that the animals’ welfare could be improved only by a ban and not by other means. That was the Radford report’s advice, and it remains the legal advice.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

James Paice: No. I will finish with the legal matters before giving way again.
	Obviously I cannot tell the House that there would be a challenge, or what the result would be, but we do have to note the advice. The Radford review concluded in 2007 that no scientific evidence existed to show that circuses by their nature compromised the welfare of wild animals. It was on that basis that it concluded that a ban on the grounds of welfare would be disproportionate in the absence of evidence that welfare was compromised.
	There are two further risks from that action: the cost to the taxpayer and the risk that a court might agree to suspend the ban until legal proceedings had concluded. In other words, although the law itself might have been passed, nothing would have changed for the animals themselves.

Stephen Phillips: On that point, will the Minister give way?

James Paice: This is in comparison with a licensing system that would be in place by the end of the year.

Sadiq Khan: He is a lawyer.

James Paice: I am well aware of who wishes to intervene.
	I turn now to the European aspects of the legislation. The European legislation would apply whether we use primary or secondary legislation to implement a ban. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in her statement on 19 May, informed the House of the error in referring to an action currently before the Courts in the European Union, and I repeat our regret over that error. Nevertheless, I can inform the House, as has already been stated, that as I predicted on the same day, a case has been laid by Circus Krone against the Austrian Government in the Austrian constitutional court. We know not the outcome, but the fact that that case has been laid supports the legal advice that we have previously reported to the House, namely that a wholesale ban may well be counter to section 16 of the EU services directive, and that any subsequent legal challenge would have the same consequences that I have described.

Stephen Phillips: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, and it is well known in the House that I do not often give free legal advice. He refers to the advice that he has received, and I have no doubt that that is the advice he has received, but I have to tell him that in my opinion that advice is wrong, and that, having seen the quality of some of the advice that the Government receive from the European Scrutiny Committee, it is about time that outside legal advice was taken.

James Paice: No doubt we could lay every lawyer in the House end to end and not reach a definite conclusion. I note my hon. and learned Friend’s comments, and obviously I respect them.
	May I turn to the nub of the issue? When hon. Members decide in a few minutes’ time how to react to the motion before us, I hope that they will pay heed to what I have said about the risks attached to it. It is of course a matter for the House to decide, but I hope that hon. Members will not focus on whether we ban or, indeed, wish to end cruelty, because I hope that there is no doubt about our desire on the latter point, but focus on how we go about achieving the end to cruelty in circuses, on which we are I believe united.
	Although a complete ban, as advocated in the motion, might well achieve that end in time, there are, as I have tried to describe, significant risks in taking it forward with the deadline and using the legal mechanism to which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin has referred. That is why the Government have come forward with a proposal that might achieve the same end with more certainty. Nevertheless, as I say, the House has a right to decide otherwise.
	I understand and fully respect the very high emotions involved, including on the issue of the ethics of animals performing for human entertainment.

Tessa Munt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

James Paice: I am sorry, but I am rapidly coming to the end of my time.
	I share the views of hon. Members who are concerned about the use of performing animals, but I also have to react to and respect the legislation that we have enacted in this House in the past, and the reality is that section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not allow ethical considerations to justify a ban, so I hope that in considering how to vote hon. Members will consider those points.
	The Government are determined to stamp out cruelty to and the bad welfare of animals in circuses. We have put forward our proposals, and it is of course for the House to decide that we should perhaps reconsider them, but I ask the House to consider the legislative background against which it might ask us to do so.

Mark Pritchard: I pay tribute to and thank the Minister, who has been very brave and courageous today and deserves a parliamentary medal for a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible, given his personal position, which he stated clearly on the Floor of the House on 19 May. I thank also all Members from all parts of the House for a very vibrant debate that has informed the House on a range of issues relating to what I and, more importantly, 92% of the public believe is an important issue.
	This nation once led the world in animal welfare. There is no reason we cannot drag ourselves into the 21st century and regain and reclaim those global animal welfare credentials. That is why I hope that Members will support my motion.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved ,
	That this House directs the Government to use its powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to introduce a regulation banning the use of all wild animals in circuses to take effect by 1 July 2012.

Business without Debate

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (FINANCE (NO. 3) BILL)

Ordered,
	That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance (No. 3) Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to motion 3, which can be debated until 6 pm.

Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the Order Paper it says that there will be no debate before 6 pm on the motion on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill. Can you guide us on the correct procedure in terms of whether this motion can go ahead now or whether it will be taken after 6 o’clock?

Mr Deputy Speaker: It can be debated or the Question can be put.

Draft House of Lords Reform Bill (Joint Committee)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 7 June, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft House of Lords Reform Bill presented to both Houses on 17 May (Cm 8077).
	That a Select Committee of thirteen Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft House of Lords Reform Bill (Cm 8077).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 29 February 2012.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Gavin Barwell, Mr Tom Clarke, Ann Coffey, Bill Esterson, Oliver Heald, Tristram Hunt, Mrs Eleanor Laing, Dr William McCrea, Dr Daniel Poulter, Laura Sandys, John Stevenson, John Thurso and Malcolm Wicks be members of the Committee.—(Bill Wiggin.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 140, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DENTAL BLEACHING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for being present to respond to the debate. I understand that he is in some matrimonial difficulty because I have delayed him here this evening and it is his wife’s birthday. If it is any compensation, I am sure that I can arrange for his wife to be given a free bleaching treatment quite soon—on the understanding that he explains to her that it is free, so that he does not get away with allowing her to think that she has been presented with an expensive gift.
	Let me first declare a simple interest and then add to it, because of the specifics of the debate. I am a qualified and practising—although admittedly very part-time—dentist. I am also a member of the British Dental Association, the British Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry, the British Endodontic Society, and the British Dental Bleaching Society. That explains why I am a target for some 36,000 dental practices which are leaning on this issue. I hope that the Minister will bear with me.
	The Minister will be aware that tooth bleaching by dentists has been around for a long time. I first used it about 30 years ago. My tutor was my now retired dental partner, who qualified during the second world war, and his tutor was his father, who qualified shortly after the first world war. Dental bleaching has therefore been used for more than 100 years. In the early days we used a 30% solution of hydrogen peroxide, known in those days as Superoxol. It was extremely destructive of soft tissues, which needed to be protected. In those days we used something called a rubber dam, which was a small sheet of latex rubber with holes placed in it so that the teeth could poke through. The teeth could then be bleached, and the soft tissues were looked after.
	The aim of bleaching is to remove discolourations from the teeth without harming the teeth themselves. The discolourations can come from a number of sources, including tobacco, hard water, tea, coffee and, according to the actresses, red wine. Teeth may also be iatrogenically discoloured, the most famous example being tetracycline discolouration. In the early days of antibiotics, children were given an antibiotic called tetracycline, which was one of the early broad-spectrum bacteriostatic antibiotics and was widely used. Although it generally dealt with the targeted infection, if taken by children it discoloured the developing teeth, sometimes to a grotesque degree.
	Second or adult teeth that have received a blow can often darken quite quickly, particularly if the individual is young. The teeth most frequently hurt in that way are the upper incisors, particularly the upper central incisors. Endodontically treated teeth often darken, particularly if the operator has been unable to remove, or has not removed, all the pulpal tissue from the internal dentine.
	Nowadays, dental restorations are generally of a more cosmetically acceptable material. If someone is to have a filling, it is good for it to be done in a cosmetically acceptable way. It is becoming increasingly accepted as standard practice that when composites, porcelain crowns, porcelain veneers and porcelain inlays are used for restorations, it is sensible to bleach the teeth first. That achieves a benchmark colour to which the new restoration
	is then colour-matched. As the patient’s teeth become discoloured over subsequent years from all the hazards, including red wine, it is possible to use that same process to bring the teeth back to that original benchmark level.
	Dental bleaching is not available on the national heath, but I believe that in some cases it should be, because it is less destructive than other options. To provide a simple example, if an NHS patient has badly tetracycline-stained teeth, the only option on the NHS to restore normal appearance is extensive crowns or veneers. They are destructive to the teeth and much more costly, and in time they will need regular replacement. The better approach is dental bleaching, which leaves the teeth intact and can produce an acceptable colour.
	Techniques of dental bleaching have improved. First, the dentist has to check that the patient’s teeth are in good order; then there are essentially two different bleaching techniques available. The first is the so-called home technique, whereby after inspecting the patient, the dentist constructs close-fitting trays that the patient wears for a period of time at home. The bleach trays are designed to hold the gel against the teeth but away from the soft tissues.
	The second method is so-called power bleaching, which is done in the surgery and generally uses much stronger hydrogen peroxide concentrations. The soft tissues are protected by either the aforementioned rubber dam or, more generally nowadays, by a foam that is set by an ultraviolet light. Some techniques use a light or heat source, although I personally believe that that is more for the image of the procedure as the patient sees it than to benefit the process.
	Nowadays, hydrogen peroxide is generally delivered in varying strengths of carbamide peroxide. Those strengths vary from 10% to 38% when used in the surgery. The actual hydrogen peroxide concentration delivered is lower. For example, 10% carbamide peroxide delivers approximately a 6% concentration of hydrogen peroxide. As logic will tell the Minister, the higher the concentration, the faster the bleaching, but the more likely it is to produce sensitive teeth.
	I hope that the Minister understands from what I have said that the procedure should be in the hands of a trained dental professional, as misuse can cause harm, sometimes extensive harm. Even bleaching at home must be under the direction of a dental care professional. Recent decisions of the General Dental Council have stated that dental bleaching by trained dental professionals is a part of professional dental treatment. That has been endorsed by the Secretary of State for Health and the Health Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	The reason for this preamble is to explain to the Minister that the dangers of the material involved when it is misused must be understood and taken into consideration. Organisations such as the British Dental Bleaching Society run certification training courses to ensure that the dental professional teams undertaking the treatment are properly trained. Unfortunately, a number of non-dental professionals, particularly in beauty salons, are illegally bleaching teeth. Sadly, some of those individuals are using a material called chlorine dioxide, which, although it produces an initial appearance of whitening teeth, actually badly damages them.
	As the Minister will be aware, the fly in the ointment is the European cosmetics directive, which restricts the sale of tooth-bleaching materials containing more than 0.1% hydrogen peroxide. Clearly that makes eminent sense when applied to over-the-counter medicines, but from a dental treatment point of view 0.1% hydrogen peroxide is absolutely useless.
	The enforcement of the cosmetics directive is in the hands of local government trading standards officers on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Most trading standards officers recognise that higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide delivered as part of dental treatment by dental professions are completely different from over-the-counter sales or the actions of non-dental professionals. The directive is inappropriate, because tooth bleaching is accepted as part of dentistry.
	In 2005, the European Commission scientific committee on consumer products recommended that tooth-whitening products containing 0.1% to 6% hydrogen peroxide are not safe to be sold over the counter. The recommendation was that they should not be used freely, but that they are safe to be used after the approval, and under the supervision, of a dentist. Since then, the UK Government, along with most EU members, have been trying to change the directive in the light of the recommendation. However, because two or three EU members of the committee keep baulking, there has been no change, despite seven years of pressure. I understand that the Minister could reassure me tonight that the issue is to be taken above the committee, where it is expected to be passed—at last—by a majority vote.
	However, the situation has come to a head locally, as the Minister is aware. A patient of a Hull dentist complained to Hull trading standards. Hull trading standards took samples from the dentist and asked Essex county council trading standards to investigate a firm called Dental Directory, which is a major supplier to dentists and the supplier to the Hull dentist in question. I believe that Essex trading standards officers have taken the names of other suppliers and suggested to respective trading standards organisations that they should investigate. Some did so, but others thought it through and decided that that was inappropriate.
	After full consideration, Essex trading standards sent an e-mail to Dental Directory, which states:
	“This Service has no issue with peroxide-based whiteners over 0.1% supplied to GDC registered dentists for use in the course of a professional whitening service conducted by a registrant. It is the view of this Service that such treatments would be regulated by the GDC.”
	That is a brilliantly sensible response.
	However, another big firm of suppliers, Henry Schein, has a number of different depots in different areas, which are covered by different trading standards. It has received differing instructions. Kent trading standards echoed Essex’s eminently sensible position, but Medway trading standards informed Henry Schein that it is not allowed to supply dental bleach with over 0.1% hydrogen peroxide. Needless to say, enormous pressure was applied. I suspect to the Minister’s relief, Medway has reverted to the sensible Essex county council position.
	That leaves me with two simple requests for action to sort out this particular nonsense. First, I urge the Minister, if at all possible, to obtain a change in the directive, and
	secondly, to inform all UK trading standards that the approach taken by Essex and Kent trading standards should be the norm.
	As the Minister may recall, a few moments ago I mentioned beauticians and non-registrants illegally bleaching teeth. Many of those people are dangerous. For example, a plasterer from Kent plasters walls during the day, and bleaches teeth in people’s homes in the evening, using 38% hydrogen peroxide, with no guards or safety measures. To put it bluntly, he probably burns the gum off the bone and the teeth. He is dangerous.
	Others use chlorine dioxide. As the Minister’s school chemistry will tell him, when chlorine dioxide hits water, as in saliva, it turns to hydrochloric acid, and eats the enamel surface off the teeth. The initial slight whitening appearance turns, on further applications, yellow and then brown, as the dentine shows through because the enamel disappears. To put it bluntly, that simply wrecks teeth.
	To add to those problems, a number of highly acidic tooth-whitening products are available over the counter for personal, home bleaching. Many are highly acidic. All the highly acidic ones are highly damaging. To my amazement, even two reputable UK pharmacies—I am not naming them for the moment—are selling such products over the counter. I am therefore also asking the Minister to assist, through trading standards, in stopping beauticians and other non-dental registrants bleaching teeth. The General Dental Council is taking action, but it does not have the strength and spread of trading standards.
	In addition, will the Minister seek a ban on the use of chlorine dioxide for teeth bleaching, including on the supply of acidic, over-the-counter home bleaching materials? An awful lot of smiles on the faces of some very pretty young ladies are being wrecked in the United Kingdom.

Edward Davey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this important debate. It is not the first time he has come to the House to campaign on this issue—he deserves a lot of credit for his persistence and determination. This is a serious issue for those adversely affected by people using certain materials they should not be using, as he explained. I also thank him for the offer to my wife—I will convey it to her later this evening.
	This is a complex matter involving overlapping issues, which my hon. Friend highlighted. Particular factors to consider are: first, that the current European-derived law clearly restricts the level of hydrogen peroxide to a level at which it cannot bleach teeth. Secondly, prevailing scientific opinion on the safety of hydrogen peroxide in teeth-whitening products is out of step with current maximum limits. Thirdly, how do we most appropriately enforce the law? Fourthly, who should be undertaking teeth whitening? Should the role be reserved to dentists or should it be available from other suppliers and even for home use? Finally, there is the issue about the safe use of other substances used as an alternative to hydrogen peroxide.
	Although I recognise how deeply frustrating this matter is for all involved, I will try to address these points and highlight a possible resolution of the issue.
	I hope that I can give my hon. Friend some satisfaction tonight, but if there are other points he wishes to make that he feels have not been covered, I will be happy to correspond with him, and if necessary meet him. There is no doubt that teeth-whitening products are cosmetic products within the meaning of the cosmetic products directive. Hon. Members will know that the UK has been pressing for a number of years on the cosmetics regulatory committee for the maximum limit for hydrogen peroxide to be increased in line with the opinion of the scientific committee on consumer products in 2005, to which my hon. Friend referred.
	The scientific committee’s view was that allowing a greater percentage of hydrogen peroxide in teeth-whitening products would not be detrimental to the health of consumers. Since then, however, there have been protracted discussions in Brussels on matters of detail. We are now in the position where the European Commission has proposed a number of directives to amend the cosmetic products directive, each of which has failed. The latest was submitted to the standing committee on cosmetic products for vote by written procedure in May last year, at which time five member states voted against the proposal.
	The Commission was therefore required to reconsider its proposal, and has since amended the directive. Instead of putting it back through the regulatory standing committee, the Commission intends to submit it to the Council for a council directive. Let me explain the detail of this new development. The Commission believes that use of teeth-whitening products containing more than 0.1% and up to 6% hydrogen peroxide can be considered safe if the following conditions are satisfied: first, if an appropriate clinical examination takes place to ensure the absence of risk factors; and, secondly, if exposure to the products is controlled to ensure that they are used as intended. Teeth-whitening products should therefore not be directly available to the consumer. For each cycle of use, the first use should be limited to dental practitioners or under their direct supervision. This will be communicated to the Council before the summer break, and we will support it.
	I note that the General Dental Council considers tooth whitening the practice of dentistry, which is limited to GDC registrants, and this ties in with the new proposal for a directive. Indeed, earlier this year the GDC successfully prosecuted a non-registrant under the Dentists Act 1984. I would urge members of the public who have received a treatment about which they have concerns to raise it with the GDC. This also applies where alternative teeth-whitening treatments, such as chlorine dioxide, are used
	with unsatisfactory or damaging results. My officials will contact the Commission about the concerns of the British Dental Association over the use of chlorine dioxide in teeth-whitening products.
	On the question of enforcement, I understand that there have been concerns about investigations carried out by trading standards services into the supply of teeth-whitening products, some of which contained significant levels of hydrogen peroxide—more than the newly proposed amendment would permit. Trading standards services have a duty to enforce the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008, but they take a risk-based approach to enforcement. To our knowledge, they have never actively targeted dentists, but where suppliers are marketing home-use kits, they have a responsibility to investigate where such products could reasonably present a risk to the consumer.
	My Department neither controls nor directs trading standards services in their enforcement activities. However, officials will be making them aware of the latest developments in Brussels on the issue, so that they can understand the direction in which the law is likely to develop. Officials have also been in contact with many of the trading standards departments looking into the matter to ensure that a consistent approach will be taken. Decisions on whether to progress investigations into suppliers of home-use kits will remain decisions for local authorities. It is unfortunately true, however, that many suppliers of teeth-whitening products have already anticipated a change in the law, which has made the task of trading standards officers extremely difficult over the past few years. On a separate but closely related note, I am pleased to say that a new and specific element on enforcement will shortly be added to the red tape challenge. We would encourage businesses to go on the red tape challenge website and tell us about the problems they are having with the implementation of regulations.
	In conclusion, I hope that I have been able to shed light on the latest developments, which could offer a way forward on this protracted issue. Subject to agreement in Brussels, the new directive will clarify the law. I also believe that the decision of the General Dental Council will help to clarify the position on the provision of teeth-whitening services. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to put that on the record, and I hope that he and the dentists on whose behalf he has so persistently advocated will be pleased with it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.